Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday 23 January.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

POOLE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

PETERHEAD HABOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT)

ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

City of London

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss affairs relating to the regulation of the City of London.

Mr. Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I have frequent discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England on a variety of matters.

Mr. Hoyle: Has the Chancellor held any discussions with the chairman of Lloyd's? Will he also have discussions with Mr. Ian Hay Davison, who was the chief executive of the Lloyd's Council? Does he believe that the inquiry into Lloyd's set up by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will restore confidence in a tainted City? If the inquiry produces an adverse report, what steps will be taken to implement its proposals as quickly as possible to put matters right?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is a day late. Trade and Industry Question Time was yesterday, and Lloyd's is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend.
I do have responsibilities in the City, and I object strongly to the hon. Gentleman's reference to a tainted City. Certain parts of the City are tainted, but to suggest that the City as a whole is tainted is wrong. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Bruce:: As this week the Government have yet again been forced to raise interest rates, and as the highest

real level in interest rates ever has come about during their period in office, when the Chancellor next meets the Governor of the Bank of England will he accede to his request to join the European monetary system and so help to stabilise the pound without having to impose such high and penal rates of interest?

Mr. Lawson: There are arguments both for and against joining the EMS. However, if the hon. Gentleman imagines that joining will mean that it will never again be necessary to raise interest rates, he is misinformed.

Mr. McCrindle: Next time my right hon. Friend speaks to the Governor of the Bank of England about the City of London, will he, on behalf of the thousands of my constituents who earn an honest living in the square mile, tell him that there is a considerable amount of irritation at the imputations by Opposition Members and others that the reputation of the City has been hopelessly besmirched? Will my right hon. Friend take that opportunity to underline the fact that that is not the case over a very wide area of activity? Will he remind the Governor, if any reminding is necessary, of the major contributions to the economy of this country made by invisible exports from the City?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. The City is pre-eminent among the financial markets of the world and makes a substantial contribution to the British economy in many different respects. Whatever may be said by Opposition Members below the Gangway, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would not wish to denigrate the City in the way that many of his hon. Friend's have done.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the Chancellor have a cheek to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) was wrong to criticise the City and say that it is tainted? Did not the Attorney-General, some nine or 10 months ago, in reply to a letter from a Tory Member, say that he found the level of City fraud unacceptable? Why did he say that? It was simply because at that time the PCW syndicate, whose two principals were Peter Cameron-Webb and Peter Dixon, had managed to get rid of about £130 million from Lloyd's—money that they had pocketed themselves. They have never been brought to book by the fraud squad. Why are the Government not doing something about it? Of course there is a scandal in the City, but this Government are not doing anything because most of them— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Lawson: That accusation, which you may not have been able to hear Mr. Speaker, was a particularly scandalous one.
The Government have long been concerned about the problem and growth of financial fraud. One of the first tasks that I peformed on becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1983—long before Opposition Members were talking about the problem—was to chair an interministerial group, out of which arose the setting up of the fraud investigation group which came into being on 1 January 1985. In 1983, long before the Opposition were alive to the problems, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade arid Industry, when he was Home Secretary, set up the Roskill committee with the Lord Chancellor to look into the legal aspects. That


committee has just published a powerful report. As the House knows, we shall be legislating on that matter in the next Session.

Mr. Hickmet: Is my right hon. Friend concerned at the level of investment and penetration of our markets by Japanese banks and financial institutions in the City, especially as they are not subject to the Bank of England prudential lending limits? Has he discussed that matter with the Governor of the Bank of England, bearing in mind the steps taken by the Japanese to prevent our banks from competing in their markets on similar terms? What steps does he propose to take?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend has raised an important matter. In general terms I think that the City of London and the United Kingdom have benefited from the existence of overseas banks and financial institutions in the City and the country. However, there has been a lack of reciprocity. We are increasingly making it clear that reciprocity is the name of the game. If Japanese financial institutions want to have an increasing presence in the City of London, then what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am glad to say that there have been many recent instances of British financial institutions obtaining licences to operate in Japan as a result of the strong line that the Government have taken.

Mr. Hattersley: When does the Chancellor propose to announce the membership of the new board of banking supervision? Can we be assured that it will include members from outside the self-protected charmed circle of the City itself?

Mr. Lawson: The membership will be chosen on the basis of the ability and experience of the individuals concerned. I shall bear the comments of the right hon. Gentleman in mind. I deprecate his implication that anybody who comes from what he calls the "charmed circle of the City" must be in some way tainted.

Mr. Speaker: May I ask for brief questions, and that will lead to brief answers.

Shares, Savings and Investments

Mr. Greenway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people holding shares, savings or any other kind of investment in 1978 and 1984; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): The number who own shares directly has at least doubled since 1978 to over 3 million people, and recent market research suggests that the figure may now be much higher.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome that magnificent spread of wealth in the country. May I ask how many people who have been saving for old age with pension and insurance companies would lose if privatised companies were renationalised on the discriminatory basis so rashly announced by the Leader of the Labour party in his new year interview? What would those people do?

Mr. Brooke: The number involved would be affected according to which shares were held by which institutions. However, 13 million electors hold occupational pensions, and if there were privatised shares in those institutions they would all be mulcted of the improvements in the price since they were served.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister admit that in the case of all the privatised companies, shortly after privatisation the number of small shareholders has decreased dramatically? In the case of British Aerospace, recently in the news, within 12 months the number of shareholders holding fewer than 500 shares went down to almost 10 per cent. of those who had bought them at the point of privatisation. Will the Minister tell the House the truth—that privatisation is not about wider share ownership, but is about the hands of some of his hon. Friends going into the jam pots to make money for themselves and their backers?

Mr. Brooke: Individual decisions about individual shares will be taken differently, according to the company, by individual investors. The fact remains that 80 per cent. of the new shareholders in British Telecom still hold those shares.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Does my hon. Friend's Department look favourably at ways, such as minor tax changes, that might encourage people to invest not only in equities but in debentures and other forms of investment?

Mr. Brooke: The Government are supportive of sales of debentures in the same way as they are of equities.

Income Tax

Mr. Chope: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effective marginal tax rate on earnings of those in the lowest tax band; and how this compares with other major industrial countries.

Dr. Twinn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effective marginal tax rate on earnings of those in the lowest tax band; and how this compares with other major industrial countries.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): The marginal income tax rate on earnings for those in the lowest tax band in this country is 30 per cent. This is the second highest national rate among the OECD countries.

Mr. Chope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that our marginal tax rate is far too high, particularly for those on low earnings, when compared with 10 per cent. in France and 11 per cent. in the United States? Does he also agree that the high marginal rate is contributing to the increase in the black economy?

Mr. Moore: There is no question but that the high marginal rate, as well as the problem of regulation, has an impact on the black economy. That is one of the factors in the burden of taxation. I concur with my hon. Friend's two specific points: the United States rate is 11 per cent. and the French initial rate is 10 per cent.

Dr. Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are startling comparisons? Does he know of any of our competitors with such a high rate?

Mr. Moore: The only nation with a rate above us in the OECD is Ireland. To give some illustrations, the United States rate is 11 per cent., Japan 11 per cent., West Germany 22 per cent. and France 10 per cent. All our industrial competitors have an initial rate substantially below ours.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is it correct that other countries have a different starting level at which one begins to pay tax, that virtually every PAYE taxpayer pays only the standard rate, and that therefore the tax system is hardly progressive for higher earners?

Mr. Moore: It is right that the initial rate starts at a different point. In the United States, for example, the average production worker has a threshold that starts at about 17 per cent. of his overall initial wage against the United Kingdom comparison of 27 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that on thresholds we are approximately in the middle of the OECD ranking.

Mr. Terry Davis: Has the Financial Secretary noticed that the question refers to the effective marginal tax rate, which is usually taken to include national insurance and other surcharges? Will he confirm that the new family credit scheme and the proposed changes in housing benefit suggested in the Fowler review mean that the number of people facing an effective marginal tax rate of more than 70 per cent. will be doubled from 250,000 to 500,000?

Mr. Moore: I reconfirm that the question relates to the effective marginal tax rate as opposed to the national insurance rate. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services reduce below 100 per cent. for the first time all the effective marginal rates.

Mr. Alan Howarth: If my right hon. Friend has occasion, with his colleagues, to reflect on the respective merits of lowering the basic rate of income tax or increasing the threshold at which it is paid, will he bear in mind that there are important economic and indeed constitutional arguments in favour of making the Government, in their public expenditure, accountable to a larger rather than a smaller number of taxpayers?

Mr. Moore: That point has beeen made in public debate. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is scope to reduce taxes—one cannot say at this time—when he considers his Budget.

Northern Region

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of new finance available for the northern region as a consequence of his autumn statement.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): It is not practicable to estimate the incidence of new finance over the whole range of Government expenditure on a regional basis.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that I have asked a similar question on every Budget statement made since the Government came to office in 1979 and that each time I have received a similar reply? I expected something different for a change—that there will be an improvement in the northern region. What is different about this answer? If the Minister and the Government genuinely wish to make an impact upon the 230,000 unemployed people in the northern region, may I suggest that he takes the initiative and seeks to establish a northern development agency and—this is important—makes the same sums of money and resources available to it as are available to the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not know whether the reply that I shall give is the same as the one that the hon. Gentleman has received in the past.

Mr. Dormand: I hope not.

Mr. MacGregor: It is not possible to estimate the amount of new finance, because a great deal of public expenditure is demanded or comes from procurement policies which depend upon decisions about competitive tenders by firms in different parts of the country. There are many good reasons why it is not possible to estimate the range of new finance.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question, he will be aware that substantial sums—over £2 billion—have been spent in the northern region on many activities of the kind in which the SDA becomes involved—regional, development, industrial and urban grants, and so on. There has been substantial expenditure. I am well aware of the northern region's problems, which are long-term. To pour taxpayers' money on them is not the sole answer.

Mr. Forth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the consistency of his approach to this matter, as illustrated by his answer to the last question. Does he recognise that if there are to be any bids from regions for assistance, the west midlands region must also be considered because, regrettably, unemployment is still distressingly high there? He should not be allowed to get away with the idea that the problems exist only in the north or in the other fringe areas of the United Kingdom. The heart of England equally needs recognition of its problems.

Mr. MacGregor: I well understand that the problems of restructuring regional industrial areas, many of which are dependent upon traditional industries, are not confined to the northern region.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that there has been a 57 per cent. cut in regional aid to the northern region since the Government came to office and that further cuts are forecast in the public expenditure White Paper published yesterday? In addition, a £2·6 billion cut in public capital expenditure is forecast in the White Paper. Will that not be further devastating to the northern region? Is not the truth of the matter that the Government have given up hope of ever helping the northern region?

Mr. MacGregor: Not at all, because substantial sums have been poured into the northern region. One of the key elements is the new jobs in the new industries coming to the northern region—some 21,000 in the electronics and pharmaceutical industries. It takes a long time to restructure an economy, but those things are happening. We have altered the course of regional development aid because there was no clear evidence that some of the money being spent was cost-effective. Since the northern region still has a high proportion of its area covered by assisted area status, proportionately it will benefit a good deal more from the new policy.

Mr. Bell: Is the Minister aware that the consistency to which he referred means that the north-east is continually going downhill? Whereas the Government say that 55,000 people are unemployed in the county of Cleveland, the figures released by the county council planning department show that there are 71,300 people unemployed. Is he aware of the study last year which found that


£350 million needs to be invested in the northern region to cover the revamping of houses, roads and schools? Where is there provision for that?

Mr. MacGregor: If we are to maintain the downward pressure on inflation, which is important for northern region industries and those everywhere else, and if we are to contain the cost of public expenditure as a proportion of GNP, which is also important for those industries, there are inevitably constraints on the total level of public spending. In this White Paper we have increased public expenditure on housing renovation and roads compared with last year's White Paper.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the Government intend to make a further 40 per cent. cut in environmental and industrial expenditure in the northern region by the time of the next general election? Is it not equally true that at a time when those cuts are taking place in the northern region, Northern Ireland, for some reason, is being insulated from public expenditure cuts? Why is Northern Ireland insulated in this way? Why is it intended that Northern Ireland should get an increase by 1988? Is it that violence in Ulster is paying? Is it that the Government are refusing to admit that the higher the level of violence in Northern Ireland, the more money the Government are willing to sink in? Is that not a disgrace?

Mr. Macgregor: The way in which public expenditure in Northern Ireland is calculated in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the same under this Government as it was under the Labour Government. It is done by a block formula arrangement which reflects the same trends in expenditure and income.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any money spent on trying to create jobs in the northern region almost invariably means fewer jobs in other hard-hit areas like the east midlands, which have received virtually no Government aid?

Mr. MacGregor: It is important that we can at least say that any regional aid has some possibility of being cost effective in creating jobs. That is what we have done in our regional policy.

Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on tax relief on mortgage interest.

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the subject.

Mr. Jessel: Do the Government accept that mortgage interest relief, especially to young home buyers, is vital and must continue? Is not the £30,000 mortgage limit now rather on the low side in areas where an ordinary family house now costs £50,000 to £80,000?

Mr. MacGregor: The £30,000 limit is a matter for decision in each Finance Bill. My hon. Friend would not expect me to make a statement about that today. The Government have made it clear on many occasions that they have no intention of abolishing mortgage interest relief, for the very reason given by my hon. Friend. We are still awaiting similar clear and categorical assurances from the Opposition.

Dr. Bray: Is the Chief Secretary aware that if Government policy to preserve broadly the present level of exchange rate remains, the prospect in the medium term is of increasing, not falling, interest rates?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall not make any comments about interest rates. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the question is about tax relief.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House what the level for tax relief on mortgage interest would be if the initial figure of £25,000 were to be updated to take account both of inflation and of the increase in house prices?

Mr. MacGregor: Off the cuff, I cannot recall the answer to that question, although I used to take a close interest in the matter. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hattersley: On the rhetorical question which the Chief Secretary so carefully prepared, may I offer him a spontaneous but categorical answer? There is no question of the next Labour Government, whom he clearly anticipates, abolishing mortgage interest tax relief. May I ask the Chief Secretary, on the subject of the question rather than on the subject of his slightly inappropriate question to me, how many representations he has received from owner-occupiers about the hardship they are now suffering through having to endure the highest real mortgage interest rate in the history of this country?

Mr. MacGregor: We have received no such representations. It is interesting to note that over the period of this Government the number of people who have moved into home-ownership has expanded enormously. That trend is continuing, and there remains a high demand for mortgage funds and owner-occupied housing.

Mr. Penhaligon: I am sure that there will be general pleasure at hearing that mortgage interest relief will be retained, regardless of the colour of the Government. However, whatever the logic of the current situation, can the Minister explain why, if somebody succeeds in increasing his income, while he is in possession of a mortgage, from £10,000 to £100,000 a year, that great increase in his personal income should be accommodated by a double subsidy from the Government towards his interest payments?

Mr. MacGregor: I did not fully catch the hon. Gentleman's question, but if he is referring to the range of income and mortgage interest relief he will know that the fact that mortgage interest relief applies to the tax rates reflects the fact that some people are paying much higher rates of tax.

Car Tax

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received advocating the abolition of car tax.

Mr. Brooke: A number of such representations have been received.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that only the motor industry is discriminated against by having imposed upon it a separate and additional tax? Does he agree that if it were abolished it would benefit both the consumer and the motor industry and would lead to a substantial number of additional jobs?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend knows that the car tax was introduced in 1973 mainly to compensate for the revenue lost from cars when the purchase tax rate of 25 per cent. was replaced by the standard rate of VAT. If car tax were abolished, a significant proportion of any increased demand would probably be met by imports, which currently represent about 58 per cent. of new car sales.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Having regard to the number of industries which serve the British motor industry, would not the abolition of the car tax have a significant effect upon employment in the motor industry?

Mr. Brooke: Taxation is only one of the factors that affects the demand for cars. Per capita income, manufacturers' unit production costs and pricing policies also affect demand. However, I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Park: I appreciate the Minister's explanation of how the tax came to be introduced in the first place. Is he aware that if he were to remove this unique tax it would be more than compensated for by the increase in car sales? Austin-Rover, having been asked, is confident that it would be able to gain a full proportion of the increase in sales if the tax were abolished.

Mr. Brooke: A useful rationalisation has taken place within the United Kingdom motor industry, but excess capacity in western Europe and elsewhere remains. Imports, therefore, remain a considerable risk. However, I am delighted to say that the optimistic climate created by the Government has led to expansion at Vauxhall, Lotus, Jaguar and Peugeot.

Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that this tax is a unique imposition upon the British volume car manufacturer and that it is yet another example of this Government shooting British industry in the foot, to the benefit of its foreign competitors?

Mr. Brooke: This car tax applies to all manufacturers, whether they are foreign or British manufacturers.

Mr. Nicholls: Should not any mitigation of the car tax take second place to doing something about the fact that a constituent of mine can earn £91 a week as a nurse and then find that she has a take-home pay of only £68? Is not that the kind of thing that ought to take pride of place as regards any mitigation of tax?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is ingenious, but it is a bit wide of the question.

Mr. Brooke: That seems to me to be a Budget question and it would he inappropriate for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Economic Growth

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of the United Kingdom's real economy in terms of manufacturing output and overall growth since the beginning of 1985.

Mr. Lawson: Manufacturing output and GDP are expected to have grown by 2½ and 3½ per cent. respectively.

Mr. Dykes: Both the real and the money figures since 1984 and 1981—the low point—look quite good in certain manufacturing sectors, but the real, ominous truth

remains that in the leading manufacturing sectors the figures in unit, quantity or volume terms are well clown both on 1979 and on 1973. Can my right hon. Friend say, to reassure all of us, that there are other manufacturing sectors—in volume, quantity and unit of output terms, not in money terms—where there has been a big growth since 1984 and 1981? Can he reassure us once again about the miracle of the monetarist counter-revolution?

Mr. Lawson: If my hon. Friend is looking for miracles he will not find them anywhere, least of all in the policy changes that he would like to see.
As regards manufacturing, he is quite right. There are some industries that have not done so well and others that have done very much better. Taking manufacturing output as a whole during the lifetime of this Parliament, and up to the third quarter of last year, which is the latest figure that we have, the output of manufacturing industry as a whole is up by more than 7½ per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: We can discount the Minister's optimism, because he is so desperate for signs of good cheer that he would greet the quickening of rigor mortis as a healthy symptom. If he really wants to get the economy going, why does he not bring the pound down from its artifically high level and stop subsidising imports and penalising exports? He could do that by reducing interest rates, which crucify everyone?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member imagines that devaluation is a cure for everything. No doubt he would also recommend it as a cure for rigor mortis.

Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as regards manufacturing industry there are two important points? One is the improvement in productivity by a reduction of overmanning, as many companies now find that they can produce the same amount with two thirds of the original labour force. Secondly, profitability in manufacturing industry is probably higher now than in the past decade.

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend is right. One of the most encouraging signs has been the increase in productivity to which he referred, both in the whole economy and in manufacturing in particular. Manufacturing productivity, for example, during the life of this Parliament—taking the same period as I took earlier—is up by almost 10 per cent. It is necessary, however, as the CBI fully recognises, if we want to see more of our people in work, for industry to have a tighter grip of wage increases.

Dr. McDonald: Could the Chancellor tell the House his current thinking about the impact on British manufacturing output of the highest interest rates ever, higher than those of all the other major industrial countries?

Mr. Lawson: I indicated at the time of the autumn statement that the outlook was promising for output, and it has not changed since then. It is striking that, unlike the recovery under the Labour Government, in the recovery during the lifetime of this Government we have seen a rate of growth of capital investment, including investment in manufacturing, of 4 per cent. a year compared with 1¼ per cent. a year for investment under Labour.
I do not wish to see interest rates higher than necessary, any more that anyone else does, but I would much rather


have them at this level than have the negative real interest rates that we had under the Labour Government, which were cheating every saver in the land.

Revenue (Oil Prices)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the consequences for United Kingdom revenue of the change in oil prices.

Mr. Lawson: I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on the autumn statement.

Mr. Kirkwood: In what circumstances would changes in the sterling price of oil justify changes in the Government's borrowing requirement targets?

Mr. Lawson: Changes in the sterling price of oil, if there were such changes—which would have an effect on oil revenues—would certainly be one of the things that I would take into account in deciding the appropriate PSBR at the time of the Budget. But it would be only one of a number of factors.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether it is correct that Ministers are proposing to talk, or are already talking, to Saudi Arabia about oil prices? Whilst, in the interest of world stability, it would be better to prevent a huge collapse in oil prices, will my right hon. Friend assure us that it remains the policy of the Government to let oil prices settle themselves in the market? Will he accept that, providing there is no large collapse, it should not over-influence him in his decisions about tax cuts in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Lawson: I am happy to reassure my right hon. Friend that policy in these matters is exactly the same as it was when he was at the Department of Energy and when I was at that same Department.

Income Tax

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in take-home pay would be received by a person earning £140 per week if the basic rate of income tax was reduced from 30 to 28 per cent.

Mr. Moore: The increase would be £90 per week for a single person or working wife, and £39 for a married man in 1986–87, based on the illustrative allowances shown in the autumn statement.

Mr. MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we are really serious about trying to help the lower paid by means of any tax cuts that we make in the forthcoming Budget, the best way of going about it would be to raise thresholds and reduce national insurance contributions for those on lower pay, when the take-home pay would be much greater than that which he has just announced?

Mr. Moore: I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be interested in the views of my hon. Friend and others. I know that my hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend on 10 December expressing some of those views in detail. Regarding the reductions in the basic rate of £1·90 a week for a single person, if the same amount were applied on thresholds for a single person, the amount would be £1·44, or 50p less.

Group of Five Nations (Finance Ministers)

Mr. Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet Finance Ministers of the Group of Five nations to discuss international monetary affairs.

Mr. Lawson: The Finance Ministers of the Group of Five nations meet from time to time for this purpose.

Mr. Freeman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Finance Ministers of the Group of Five last met in New York four months ago, their plan to reduce the value of the dollar has worked, the dollar has weakened against sterling by about 5 per cent., and the rate with the deutschmark has changed by about 10 per cent. to a rate of approximately DM 3·50 to the pound? Does that give him confidence for his forthcoming meeting with the Group of Five Ministers?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Certainly before the G5 meeting the general view of those in industry was that, whereas the dollar was too high and could well come down, the mark could go up a little against sterling. Since the Plaza meeting sterling has risen 5 per cent. against the dollar and fallen by 9 per cent. against the deutschmark.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that Western countries depend on the present buoyant economy of the United States? Should not Germany and Japan, let alone ourselves, do more to stimulate our economies, and so play our part in a continued resurgence of activity in western Europe, America and Japan?

Mr. Lawson: It is possible to exaggerate considerably both the extent to which growth in the world economy is dependent on growth in the United States, and the extent to which that has slowed down. That growth has slowed down from an unsustainable rate, but it is continuing in the United States and quickening in the Federal Republic of Germany. One would certainly like to see the Japanese pursue a more generous policy than at present.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the international economy is being severely hurt by an international trade war, which this time is being carried on by competitive devaluations of currencies? Does he further accept that such a trade war could be stopped if we were to move towards fixed exchange rates and honest international money, that is, if there were some restoration of gold convertibility on a gold exhange standard? When he meets his G5 friends, will he please undertake to consider the restoration of stability in world monetary and financial affairs, in the hope that that will reflect on the world economy in terms of genuine trade growth?

Mr. Lawson: I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend said. He will not expect me to answer all his points. I am sure that the strength and durability of the world recovery since the world recession in the early 1980s, and the growth of world trade that has accompanied it, depend on the fact that all the countries involved are pursuing anti-inflationary, sound money policies.

Mr. Blair: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that now is the last time to be complacent about the international economy? Does he not realise that it still faces the terrible, pressing problems of world debt and a potential decline in economic growth? Will he assure us


that when he meets the Group of Five he will be at the forefront of calls for a co-ordinated cut in interest rates and policies of expansion, and will not indulge in absurd notions of leaving those matters to market forces?

Mr. Lawson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Finance Ministers of the Group of Five are fully seized of the problem of international debt and of the need to maintain sound anti-inflationary polices, both for their own sake and to ensure a continuation of world recovery.

Wage Increases

Mr. Haynes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to meet the National Economic Development Council to discuss the level of wage increases.

Mr. MacGregor: The impact of wage increases on jobs was discussed at a meeting of the council on 8 January.

Mr. Haynes: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer next meets the NEDC to discuss the question of wages, will he bear in mind that many lower paid workers do not even pay income tax because of their circumstances? If he reduces income tax in the coming Budget, he will not help them very much. While he is having a go at the workers, will he have a go at his hon. Friends in the very high income bracket who have been receiving massive increases every year since he came into office?

Mr. MacGregor: May I make it absolutely clear that it would be wrong for me to say anything about what the Chancellor might do in the forthcoming Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Butterfill: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be giving a dinner for his Majesty King Hussein of Jordan.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiative taken by ACAS in securing a meeting next Tuesday between the employers and the majority—one hopes all—of the teachers' unions to discuss negotiations on their pay claim? Will she share with me the hope that the National Union of Teachers will at last recognise that, if we are to have discussions about the amount that teachers should be paid, we should also have discussions about what they are supposed to do for the money?

The Prime Minister: We hope that ACAS is able to help the two sides to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The Government, like parents, want to see an early end to this damaging dispute, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is our objective to have a statement that clearly defines teachers' duties and to have a pay structure that gives better pay to better teachers. That remains our objective.

Mr. Haynes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haynes: When did the Prime Minister first learn of the letter sent by the Solicitor-General to the former Secretary of State for Defence?

The Prime Minister: I do not have the precise dates with me—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will repeat the question, I will see whether from my recollection I can give him an answer. Will he repeat his question? I am sorry, but I did not quite get it.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Prime Minister tell the House when she first learnt of the letter sent by the Solicitor-General to the former Secretary of State for Defence? That is the second time.

The Prime Minister: Fairly soon after it was written, when it was sent to the Department—[Interruption.] I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise time or day, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Heseltine: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in between her other meetings, whether she can answer for me a question arising out of yesterday's debate, at column 1167, where the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry quoted from the records of the meetings that took place on 4 and 17 October? Would it now be in order, as he has quoted from those documents, for me to add a few words to the quotations?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, matters of order are not for me. I am not quite certain whether my right hon. and learned Friend quoted direct from the documents. As I heard him, he was giving the gist of the information. I am not sure whether he quoted direct. The precise point of order my right hon. Friend would clear with other people.

Mr. Nellist: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware of how appalled the country is at the succession of half-truths and naked, political ambition of recent days alongside the total disregard for the future of the jobs of Westland workers? Is she not appalled at the sharks of the City picking over the bones of Westland shares—the same people whose hands are bloody over recent redundancies in Coventry, South-East? Is the Prime Minister further aware that neither bid guarantees jobs at Westland, and that the only way to a secure, long-term future for the helicopter industry is public ownership and an expanded civilian programme?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the future for Westland lies in public ownership. We have great regard for the people who work there and for their future. I hope that for that reason the matter will be speedily resolved.

Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in British Aerospace, as declared in the Members' Register. Specifically on the question of the meeting between my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Sir Raymond Lygo on Wednesday 8 January, does my right hon. Friend accept that a close reading of the documents now


available, together with other evidence, suggests a case of genuine misunderstanding, which I hope will help us to understand some of the problems?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that that is correct. I am glad that those accounts have been fully published.

Mr. Kinnock: Given the extent, the closeness and the frequency of the contract between Sir Raymond Lygo and United States Government aerospace interests, does the Prime Minister agree that he is the last man who would need to be advised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Does that not make the excuse offered by the Secretary of State for the meeting on 8 January somewhat thin? Was not the real purpose of that meeting, not to advise, but to menace?

The Prime Minister: No one would ever accuse Sir Raymond Lygo of being anti-American in any way whatsoever. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave his own account of the meeting and why he thought it was advisable to have it at the time. I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister then answer the question, which she evaded yesterday and which her right hon. and learned Friend did not answer? Can she think of any plausible reason whatsoever why Sir Raymond Lygo should falsify either the words or the meaning of the meeting on 8 January? Is there any feasible reason why Sir Raymond should say that the Secretary of State had said to him
what you are doing could be extremely damaging to you and your business.
Is that not more Mafia than ministerial?

The Prime Minister: No. No one on this side of the House is accusing anyone of falsifying any document—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), who asked me a question a moment ago, has the right explanation.

Mr. Kinnock: I know that the Government's stock in trade is to suggest that there has been a misunderstanding. May I suggest that the quotations from Sir Raymond are so extensive, so detailed and so particular as to forbid the idea that any of the difficulty arises from misunderstanding? Sir Raymond was within minutes of his departure from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he retold the story in full detail.

The Prime Minister: The accounts are out. I fully accept that my right hon. and learned Friend's account is the correct version of the meeting—[Interruption.] It is not impossible for there to be different, genuine recollections, genuinely held.

Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious fire raging underground in a coal seam in a village in my constituency? Is she prepared to give an undertaking to assist the local authority financially in putting that fire out?

The Prime Minister: We shall obviously do all that we can, because the matter is serious.

Mr. Cartwright: In view of the widely publicised Libyan involvement in the affairs of Fiat, has the Prime Minister been given clear assurances that President Reagan's ban on economic and business links with Libya will not apply to Westland if the Fiat-Sikorsky rescue bid

succeeds? Can she guarantee that the President's sanctions against Libya will not affect technology transfer from the United States to Westland?

The Prime Minister: I can guarantee none of those things without looking into them a good deal further.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what happened yesterday, when we saw the Opposition querying the veracity of notes taken by civil servants, is unprecedented? Does she perhaps feel that those who started saying that are basically those who have never held office and never should?

The Prime Minister: I thought that they were unwarranted attacks on civil servants, who serve all Governments supremely well.

Mr. Foot: As the notorious letter sent by the Solicitor-General to the former Defence Secretary seems to involve the pursuit of a most vicious vendetta, will the right hon. Lady give an absolute undertaking that she will make the report to the House herself when she discovers the culprit?

The Prime Minister: The inquiry announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 14 January is still in progress. The right hon. Gentleman knows the custom with regard to leak inquiries—their outcome is not announced. That has been the traditional custom.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: In the light of the serious terrorist attacks on Rome and Vienna international airports during the recess, which left many innocent people murdered or maimed, and as it was quite clear that the godfather of terrorism, Colonel Gaddafi, was behind the attacks, will my right hon. Friend say what action the Government intend to take against Libya?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware that we took action against Libya after Yvonne Fletcher was murdered by guns fired through windows in the Libyan embassy. We cut off diplomatic relations, cut any defence equipment and severely restricted immigration and ECGD credit. There is very little at present that we can add to that action, which has not been diminished in any way.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Prime Minister recall that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has claimed that a further meeting on Westland was fixed for 3 pm on Friday 13 December? Does she recall that, yesterday, she said that, as no meeting was agreed, no meeting could be cancelled? Did she hear the Secretary of State for Transport say on the Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning that he was glad that the meeting had been cancelled? However inadvertently, he confirmed which side was telling the truth on this issue.

The Prime Minister: As I said yesterday, no meeting was needed and no meeting was agreed—[Interruption.] No meeting was needed and no meeting was agreed. I made that clear yesterday.

Mr. Greenway: Is it not to the eternal discredit of the Labour party—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask a question on the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is to the eternal discredit of the Labour party that it separated, when in government some 20 years ago, discussions on teachers' pay from discussions on conditions of service? Is it not that which has led to the damage to children's education today? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those circumstances must be reversed as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: There have been several attempts to negotiate pay and conditions of service together. So far, all have failed. I agree that this has been to the detriment of the education system. We must make strenuous efforts this time to see that conditions of service and a pay structure that gives better teachers more pay are agreed.

Mr. Livsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 january.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livsey: Turning from Britain to Wales, to the £200 million cut in education forecast in yesterday's expenditure White Paper and the 13 primary schools in Powys that are doomed to close, will the Prime Minister instruct the Secretary of State for Wales—[HON MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to increase the proposed rate support grant in Powys—[HON MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to the Welsh average from its present totally inadequate level for 1986–87?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about education and about primary schools in his constituency. He knows full well that it is for local education authorities to determine the pattern for the provision of education. May I point out that his constituency, Powys, is favourably treated by the Welsh rate support grant. The block grant per head in Powys is 70 per cent. of expenditure compared with an average for the Welsh counties of 59 per cent. of expenditure. The disbursement of the amount is, of course, left to the local authority.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Michael Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing, perhaps, to my relative inexperience in the practices in which I now participate, may I refer you to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave me in which she referred to a possible point of order? It would have been my fault if there was a misunderstanding, but I did hear the word "order". I was not addressing a point of order in any way to you, Mr. Speaker. If I created confusion, I apologise at once to the House. I was asking my right hon. Friend a serious question. Because it was overtaken by the concept that it might be a matter of order, I do not think that my right hon. Friend was able to answer it. Is it possible for that question to be answered now, as it is relevant and urgent? Events are taking place that could be influenced by my right hon. Friend's reply.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Prime Minister may have misunderstood the question. It occurred to me that she thought it was a point of order addressed to me. In those circumstances, I think that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) might try again on Tuesday and get his answer then.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that, when a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry quotes from official documents, those documents should then be placed in the Library?

Mr. Speaker: Such documents should be laid, but in this instance I do not think that, there was a quotation from a document.

Mr. Heseltine: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your generosity in suggesting that the answer should be asked again on Tuesday, but I would beg you to understand that meetings will take place before Tuesday to which the answer is relevant. I therefore would be grateful if I could ask that question now.

Mr. Speaker: It would be quite irregular for me to allow Question Time to go on. Virtually every day hon. Members feel that they have not got the answers that they wanted to their questions. The solution for the right hon. Gentleman would be to put down a written question today, to which he could get an answer tomorrow morning.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The issue is whether the quote was from an official document. If it was from an official document let it be placed in the Library. The question we are all asking is: was it a quote from an official document? If it was, will it be placed in the Library? That is the point that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) wishes to make. It is a perfect point of order and I ask that he be allowed to press it on the Floor.

Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have dealt with the matter. I have already said, and I say it again, that if Ministers quote from an official document, as opposed to paraphrasing an official document, it is our rule that that official document should be laid.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? Is it in order for the processes of the House

to be abused by the Labour party through the preparation of a document in the Labour party office containing 12 planted questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to be put today to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to the Foreign Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Is this not a synthetic outrage being manufactured by the Labour party?

Mr. Max Madden: rose——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not seen that document.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said just now that you believed that the Prime Minister had misunderstood the question put by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). As I understood the question that he was seeking to put, he wished the House to know whether the quote made last. night by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was a direct quote. Owing to the importance of this matter, which was the subject of a full day's debate yesterday, and of important events which are to take place tomorrow, perhaps you might allow the precedent, which occurs from time to time, for Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to answer particular questions. In today's circumstances, as you have said that you thought that the Prime Minister had misunderstood the question you might allow the question to be put again.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is almost a unique misunderstanding. I do not think I have ever heard a question put in the House to the Prime Minister which has been misinterpreted by the Prime Minister, or for that matter by any other Minister, as being a question to you in the Chair as a point of order. It is a material question. Obviously if the document was quoted from directly and can therefore be released, it would be a material matter affecting the public response to the various proposals that are before the Westland company. In these circumstances, and to resolve for the House and everyone concerned the difficulties we are in, surely it is possible for the Prime Minister now to be given leave to reply to the direct question.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I did misunderstand the question. The question as I understood it was that if there is an intended and direct quote from a document, and a speech gave a direct quote from a document, and said it was directly quoting from a document, the whole document should be laid. The first thing is, therefore, to check Hansard to see whether what was said was given as a direct quote from the document. That is the first thing that we must find out. What follows from that is a matter for the House, not for me.

Mr. Speaker: I think—[Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet. I think that the Prime Minister has dealt—[Interruption.] I think—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Order. It is not a matter for me. The Prime Minister has dealt very fairly—[Interruption.] Order. I believe that the right hon. Lady has dealt fairly with the question that was put to her, and which I confess I thought she may have misunderstood. I now understand that she did not misunderstand.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order on this matter—[Interruption.] Order. These are not matters for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was originally asked whether I would allow an answer to be given to the question. I said—and it was an act of generosity—that I would allow the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to put his question again on Tuesday. He replied that the matter was so urgent that it required an answer today. The Prime Minister has now given that answer. There is nothing more that I can do about the matter.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the way in which this matter has developed leaves you in an invidious position—clearly through no fault of yours. My understanding—and I think that it is generally shared among hon. Members—is that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) asked a question, during the course of which he used the word "order". I thought that he was addressing a question to the Prime Minister, asking whether she would give permission for him, as he put it, to finish a quotation. It was a request to the Head of a Government of whom, until last week, he had been a member.
That was misinterpreted not by the Prime Minister, as she has acknowledged, but more generally as being a question of order relating to the convention that if an official document is referred to during the course of the proceedings of the House, that document should appear in full in the Library.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) referred to this matter on Monday. I am speaking about the convention in general terms. The problem is that if a Minister refers to an official document, effectively that Minister can determine whether the document receives more general circulation by deciding whether to acknowledge that he is quoting directly from it.
That convention put you, Mr. Speaker, in an absolutely intolerable position because once such references are made, it is natural that other hon. Members—whether Opposition or Government—will ask under which set of rules they fall.
I am not making an appeal now, because you have made your decision clear, Mr. Speaker, and I would not ask you to reverse it. However, in the interests of the House, and as it is possible that the right hon. Member for Henley has overheard this exchange, he could rise on a further point of order and clarify precisely what he meant. Secondly, it may—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to allow me to hear the point of order.

Mr. Kinnock: Secondly, it may occur to the right hon. Member for Henley that there are other procedures, even during the course of this afternoon, that he might employ to secure an answer in this House.
If that were generally recognised, I am sure that we could terminate what might otherwise become an extremely long exchange of attempted points of order.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the whole House clearly heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) refer to column 1167 of yesterday's Hansard. Since a reading of that column nowhere suggests that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was quoting from any document other than the notes of his speech, this is not a matter that should detain us any longer.

Mr. Speaker: I have the page from Hansard in front of me, and during the course of the exchanges I have been looking at it carefully. I cannot see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted from any document yesterday. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that there is a distinction between referring to a document and quoting directly from it.

Official Report

Mr. Gavin Strang: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention what I believe is an important error in the Hansard report of the speech that I made last night explaining why I believed that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry could no longer stay in office and the Government maintain the trust that should exist between Ministers and Parliament. Is this the appropriate time to draw that to your attention, or should I do so after the statements?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman would raise the matter after the statements, it would give me an opportunity to look into his speech. In order that I may do that with more accuracy, will he tell me in what way the report was inaccurate?

Mr. Strang: The passage can be found in column 1150 of Hansard dated 15 January. I was quoting the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Monday. I believe that there is an important omission from that quotation, which is a direct quotation from Hansard dated Monday 13 January. I would be happy to explain the error more fully now, or I shall do so later if you wish to check Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to check Hansard, I shall take his point of order after the statements.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister was party to the deception practised on the House by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has since been to the House and made a rather limp apology, when will the right hon. Lady apologise to the House for her part in that deception?

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 JANuARY—Motions on the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 140), the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 2) 1985–86 (House of Commons Paper No. 587) and the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 138).
Afterwards motion on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 100).
TUESDAY 21 JANUARY—Until about seven o'clock, Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill [Lords] followed by Second Reading of the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill.
WEDNESDAY 22 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 4) Order and the Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY 23 JANUARY—Opposition day (4th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The threatened closure of the Gartcosh steel mill". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Crisis in schools".
Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 24 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Airports Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. The hour and a half debate given to the Welsh rate support grant on Monday is a miserably short allocation of time considering the serious damage that Government public expenditure and economic policies are doing to communities in Wales. Even at this stage, will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the time for that subject? When will the Roskill report on fraud trials be debated? When will the House have the opportunity to debate the public expenditure White Paper? May we know the date upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to introduce his Budget?

Mr. Biffen: I shall respond to the final point first. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor expects to present his Budget on Tuesday 18 March. Perhaps we could discuss through the usual channels a question of the debate on the public expenditure White Paper. There will be, I hope, a debate on the Roskill recommendations on fraud in the reasonably near future. We could discuss through the usual channels how best to use our time on Monday on the rate support grant debates.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be a statement on the Channel fixed link next week? Has the principle of it been endorsed by the full Cabinet?

Mr. Biffen: I am much touched and encouraged by the developing interest of my hon. Friend in the modalities of Cabinet government. I shall tell my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Transport of the interest that there should be a statement made as early as possible about developments concerning the Channel fixed link. I have no doubt that he will deal with the constitutional points made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 61?
[That this House notes that Crown immunity enables health authorities to flout the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Food Hygiene Regulations; is deeply concerned at growing evidence that hospital patients are suffering unnecessarily; believes that it is wrong in principle and deplorable in practice for Crown authorities to be above the law relating to welfare provision; and calls upon the Government to remove Crown immunity from all premises covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Food Hygiene Regulations.]
It calls for the abolition of Crown immunity, which protects negligent health authorities. Is he aware that there has been yet another outbreak of salmonella poisoning in a hospital which has caused great damage to patients? Is he also aware that, unless Crown immunity is abolished, more hospital patients will be poisoned and some will die? May we have an early debate?

Mr. Biffen: I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been receiving a number of representations from local authorities on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman; his long-standing interest in this matter is well known. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Sir Dudley Smith: At last business question time my right hon. Friend invited me to repeat now the question that I put to him then. Has he a rough idea as to when we are likely to have the Second Readings of the Shops Bill and the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Bill'? Can my right hon. Friend go any further today?

Mr. Biffen: Just one week further into the unknown, I am afraid. We are in need at this juncture of a little diversion, so I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too pessimistic about this.

Mr. David Steel: After the debate last night, the Leader of the House said on television not that there could be but that there would be an inquiry into the events discussed yesterday. Will he make a further statement on that next week, or can he tell us now what form the inquiry will take and when it will start?

Mr. Biffen: These matters are the responsibility of those involved in the departmental Select Committee. When I made that remark, I did so in the context of what had already been said by my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and also of the aspirations shown by my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend consider persuading my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet to bring forward the Budget date by a fortnight, because it might bring us into calmer waters and give us some good news

for a change? It would also be refreshing to deal with the Treasury instead of with the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Biffen: And it would give us a fortnight's earlier revenue. The more that I reflect upon the suggestion of my hon. Friend, the more I fear that it will be thought that his suggestion was planted. However, although I regard it as imaginative, I believe it to be unlikely.

Mr. Don Dixon: Since 1979 the Prime Minister and her Cabinet have advised trade unionists in Britain not to be dictated to by their leaders and that the silent majority should stand up and be counted. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that the House can give the same advice to the silent majority in the Cabinet?

Mr. Biffen: I am part of the constructive, progressive and forward-looking silent majority of the Cabinet.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the real England, far away from the media-riddled area of Westminster and Whitehall, Her Majesty's Government continue to enjoy great support? Many ordinary people cannot understand why such an appalling fuss has been made about such a small item. Would it help if Ministers could reduce the present large legislative programme and spend more time putting the Government's message across to the country and also seeing a bit more of us here?

Mr. Biffen: As I had the experience of some years of industrial work in the midlands, I realise that the heart of England is truly in Halesowen. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Oswestry?") Oswestry is the rural axis with Halesowen that gives balance to our national life.
I take account of the exhortation that we should spend less time legislating in this Chamber and spend more time discussing the underlying political realities outside. I must say to my hon. Friend that that is a tempting offer, but every hon. Member knows that the fortunes of the Government are related also to the formidable legislative programme upon which we have embarked, and whatever happens, day by day or week by week, we intend to finish it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Leader of the House or the Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service come to the House as soon as possible next week to make a statement outlining the position of civil servants who work directly for Ministers? Does the Leader of the House accept that, because of the statement made at the Dispatch Box last night by the Secretary of State for Trade ad Industry in which he prayed in aid in support of his case three civil servants who work in his office, those civil servants are now placed in an impossible position to confirm or deny that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was telling the truth on their behalf? It is intolerable that the British Civil Service should be placed in such a position by incompetent Ministers.

Mr. Biffen: That is an unfair comment upon the difficulty that exists with civil servants. Civil servants, having made statements in good faith proximate to the time of the events, are now being castigated as having been suborned because their statements happen to validate the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has become the centre of a major political controversy. That is the


difficulty in this matter for civil servants. I will of course consider the points made by the hon. Member and refer them to the relevant Minister.

Mr. Tony Marlow: When the Select Committee considers the position of Westland plc and the history of that company, will it be appropriate for it to scrutinise not only the actions of the Government, but the actions of the former Secretary of State for Defence and, in particular, the nature and type of correspondence that he has had with foreign Governments and EC Commissioners subsequent to Government decisions that the Westland affair would be treated in an even-handed way? Will the Select Committee also scrutinise how it was that he or, if not him, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) knew on Monday morning at 11 o'clock that a letter had gone from British Aerospace to the Government and why, knowing that that letter had gone, did the former Secretary of State ask whether it had been received and not what was in it?

Mr. Biffen: I tread carefully in such matters. It is, of course, a matter for the departmental Select Committees involved to decide how they will proceed with investigations, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that he is most anxious to give evidence before such an inquiry. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will be likewise disposed.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Leader of the House aware that in anticipation of next Thursday's debate on the proposed closure of the Gartcosh steelworks the British Steel Corporation today gave notice to its employees there and announced the timetable for the cessation of production in advance of any report to the House of the Department of Trade and Industry's reply to the Select Committee's report? Is that not to treat the House with contempt? Will the Leader of the House undertake to draw the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry to that matter and ask BSC to desist until after the debate on Thursday?

Mr. Biffen: I certainly give an undertaking to refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Roger Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that considerable interest is felt by Conservative Members in the future of the water industry—not just its possible privatisation but the introduction of universal metering? Will he bear in mind the fact that a debate in Government time on the future of that industry before the House rises for the Easter recess will be welcomed by many of my hon. Friends?

Mr. Biffen: I understand what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that he is right to say that his request is widely shared. I cannot be certain that Government time can be made available for that important topic. I shall of course continue to take account of what he has said and to inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the decision announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

that he intends to convert the Patent Office into a non-departmental body, a decision which has caused great anxiety to its staff and clients?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I understand, with his responsibilities in those matters, that he should raise the point. It could perhaps be considered through the usual channels.

Mr. James Hill: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the future of the United Kingdom's six free ports? They are being placed in some jeopardy by the draconian rules of the Collector of Customs and Excise. VAT imposts with the free ports are restricting trade and could well mean that what was an imaginative project will die through lack of Government support.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made that subject very much his own. I admire the skill and pertinacity with which he pursues it. I cannot immediately offer any Government time for a debate. As it relates to the Government's fiscal behaviour, the Budget and its aftermath may provide him with his opportunity.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the book by John Walker entitled "The Queen has been pleased" in which Mr. Walker, to my satisfaction and that of many of my hon. Friends, has proved a relationship between the number of knighthoods and peerages awarded by the Prime Minister to industrialists and the size of the donation to the Conservative party of the industries with which they are involved. As the Prime Minister may have committed a serious crime under the terms of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, will he ask the Attorney-General to tell the House when he will report the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to the Prime Minister being arrested for it?

Mr. Biffen: I must confess that I have not read the book. As a good many of the contributions in the House proceed upon the basis of good-natured ignorance rather than detailed knowledge, I shall of course draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I do not hold out much hope of the dramatic consequences mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Carlisle: In view of today's publication of Mr. Justice Popplewell's report on crowd safety, football hooliganism and other related football matters, and the wide interest felt by Members on both sides of the House about those matters, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be an early debate on that report and other attendant interests?

Mr. Biffen: In this uncertain and at times unhappy world, it is best to settle for the statement and then to see whether the conditions have been created thereafter which result in a popular request for a debate.

Mr. Dick Douglas: May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motions 302 and 306 about the position of Scottish miners who have been dismissed and who have gone before industrial tribunals?
[That this House notes the statements of the Secretary of State for Energy, and the Chairman of the National Coal Board, in which they encouraged dismissed miners to take their cases to industrial tribunals; notes also the recent decisions of the tribunals in which they have either


ordered the reinstatement of dismissed miners or asked the National Coal Board to exercise clemency by reinstatement; deplores the failure of the National Coal Board to abide by the decisions of the industrial tribunals and specifically the deliberate decision of the Coal Board in Scotland not to reinstate any miners whose reinstatement has been ordered; condemns the failure of a public corporation responsible to the Government to abide by the decisions of industrial tribunals; and calls on the National Coal Board to enter into immediate negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers with a view to securing a solution to the dispute over this matter which is endangering good industrial relations in the mining industry and prolonging bitterness within the coalfield communities.]
[That this House condemns the National Coal Board for its refusal to reinstate four dismissed miners in Scotland, having in mind that an industrial tribunal found that they were unfairly dismissed and recommended that the National Coal Board reinstate them in their employment in the coal industry; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to remind the National Coal Board that it is a creature of Parliamentary Statute and that its attitude to these cases is an affront to Parliament.]
May I plead in aid some of the words that the Leader of the House used on television last night when he said that perhaps the only way to test the veracity of reports about some meetings would be to have a taped recording. With great presence of mind, one of my constituents took that to heart, because in discussions with the pit manager and other National Coal Board officials about his dismissal he took a tape recorder and recorded the proceedings. He was then able to prove to the tribunal that the coal board was maligning him and lying about him——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member please ask a question?

Mr. Douglas: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Because of the importance of this matter and the great sense of unfairness, will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate in Government time on this important issue?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot make any promise of an early debate in Government time, although I realise that this is an issue which is of considerable import to a number of people. I will draw the attention of my relevant right hon. Friends to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He may be able to take his cause a little further during employment Question Time next week.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to arrange an early debate on the latest Cabinet disagreement—the row between the French and British Cabinets over the Channel fixed link? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest state of play on the Channel, far from cordiale, project is that there is a complete impasse between a road and rail tunnel or a rail-only tunnel? Are not those matters which should not be left to Ministers alone but which should be given a fair ventilation in Parliament as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I gave a cautious but carefully researched answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on that point. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: When will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity for the House

to debate the loss to the heritage of objects being disposed of by semi-public bodies such as universities and the churches upon which there is no restraint of export, a matter which is now much concerning those who work in the heritage world in Britain and who have those matters very much at heart?

Mr. Biffen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point that he made and I shall, of course, draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts.

Viscount Cranborne: Is my right hon. Friend sympathetic to the idea of the Government introducing a motion in the House to set up a Northern Ireland Grand Committee on the Scottish model?

Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the recent agreement concluded with the Irish Government refers to some development of a parliamentary character involving the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. In all such matters timing is probably almost as important as anything. A certain amount o f measured procrastination is not necessarily bad.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Leader of the House may be aware of the almost astonishing progress which has been made in the Gas Bill Standing Committee. Is he aware that his colleague, the Minister of State, courteously suggested to the Committee this morning that a sittings motion may be necessary? It would occupy the Committee on Tuesday. As the Leader of the House has announced a debate on the Second Reading of an energy Bill on Tuesday next week, which could well clash with the Standing Committee's extra sitting, does he realise that that would prevent those Opposition and Conservative Members who have a general energy interest from taking part in or attending the debate in the Chamber on Tuesday evening?

Mr. Biffen: I think the convention is that I am precluded from making observations about the business of Standing Committees. I will obviously take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Will the Leader of the House give some indication about when a resolution of the House might be made about shorter speeches? He assured me some time ago that it would be fairly soon.

Mr. Biffen: I certainly hope that it will be within the next few weeks.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House tell us when he envisages the Government providing time to debate star wars so that riot only the general opposition of the Labour party can be expressed, but so that we may also examine the suggestion floated this morning in The Times editorial? It may or may not have been the result of some sort of leak from this colander Cabinet and Government. It is that the Prime Minister backed the Sikorsky deal because of some sort of pay-off, some sort of kick-back, for continuation or promotion of star wars work in Britain.

Mr. Biffen: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the editorial in The Times newspaper. I notice that he featured in the editorial columns of The Times this morning. It is gentrification before our very eyes. I take note of the importance of SDI. This is the time of year when the three individual Services debates take place, and


I am certain that there will be opportunities within the ambit of those debates to make the points that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an early debate on twinning arrangements between local authorities and foreign countries? Is he aware that in Leicester, which is at the heart of England, already there is an arrangement to pair with Nicaragua and that a new plan is being arranged now that the African National Congress should be invited to Leicester on Palm Sunday to dedicate the Welford road recreation ground with its new name, the Nelson Mandela park? That is grossly offensive to all electors and ratepayers in Leicester.

Mr. Biffen: I am surprised they are not publishing an edition of postage stamps. The matters raised by my hon. Friend are important, but I cannot hold out the hope of early Government time for such a debate. He might wish to pursue such opportunity as is available to him as a private Member or, indeed, to discuss some of the fiscal aspects of this in the context of the rate support grant.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to an early debate about the decision made at the beginning of this month by the then Secretary of State for Defence to award an order to Vickers Engineering and Shipbuilding Limited for the construction of three diesel electric submarines? That decision clearly reveals the confusion in the Government's defence and industrial policies, particularly in the light of impending privatisation of the warship yards.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman brings to the attention of the House the points that he argued earlier this year and which have a direct constituency interest. I can best help by repeating what I pointed out to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), which is that shortly we will have the Services debates and they will enable such points to be made.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention early-day motion 220 standing in my name and that of many of my hon. Friends, about the abolition of standing charges?
[That this House would welcome early action to abolish the levying of public utility standing charges.]
Given the amount of understandable anxiety about the continuation of standing charges, will the right hon. Gentleman find time between now and Easter to enable the House to give its opinion on this subject?

Mr. Biffen: I will be absolutely candid with my hon. Friend. I see no likelihood of Government time being made available, but I will, of course, draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and to others the points he has just made.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I will call those hon. Members who have been standing, but I ask for brief questions because two important debates and another statement are still to come.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I should like to ask about the public inquiry into the outbreak of salmonella poisoning at Stanley road hospital

in which 19 people unfortunately lost their lives. People in my constituency and relatives, too, are becoming greatly concerned at the delay in making public the report. I understand the report is in the possession of the Government. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the report to be presented to the House and for a statement to be made by the appropriate Secretary of State?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a good and accurate point. I hope it will not be long before he is satisfied about the matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In response to the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), as one who gave written evidence and was called upon to give evidence to the Popplewell committee, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts that these issues do not simply lend themselves to necessarily brief questions and answers from the Home Secretary's statement? Is it not important that the House should look at this complicated and, heaven knows, urgent subject? The right hon. Gentleman should arrange a debate during the next month or two.

Mr. Biffen: I take that point. I was merely trying to suggest to my hon. Friend that it is at least encouraging to have a statement and the possibility of questions arising. That does not, of course, preclude the consideration of a debate, But I must point out that we are moving towards the time when the affairs of the House are substantially devoted to the Budget and its subsequent legislation.

Mr. John Ryman: May I ask the Leader of the House to give attention as a matter of great urgency to the continuing farce of the independent colliery review which begins work next week hearing an appeal about a colliery in my constituency? Is he aware that officials from the National Coal Board have said, surprising as it might seem, that whatever the decision of the tribunal they reserve the right to refuse to accept the decision if it is unfavourable to the National Coal Board? Is it not extraordinary that, in a form of arbitration presided over by a senior and distinguished judge, one of the parties to the dispute says four days in advance of the hearing that if it does not like the decision it will refuse to abide by it? It is a scandalous state of affairs. On at least four occasions I have asked the Leader of the House to make a statement about this and on each occasion, with great ingenuity, he has skilfully avoided committing himself or the Government to any policy.

Mr. Biffen: I did not think my fumbling and inept performance on this topic hitherto deserved quite the accolade that it has just received, but it is bound to continue much in the same vein. I will refer the point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who has prime responsibility for these matters. I will also look elsewhere to see whether there is any other appropriate Government Department which should be charged with making a statement on the matter.

Mr. David Winnick: Arising out of what the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said yesterday, will we have a statement next week on who it was from the Prime Minister's office that contacted the BBC to stop the interview with the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State for Defence? Was it the press secretary at No. 10? Is this not another example of the way in which the Prime Minister abuses her position?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with business questions.

Mr. Winnick: Can we have a statement about whether this was done? If it was, was it the press secretary, and does the Leader of the House agree that it is important for us to have a statement. Putting such unfair pressure from No. 10 on the broadcasting authorities is quite clearly an abuse of the Prime Minister's authority.

Mr. Biffen: I have to say quite clearly that I have no plans for a statement on this subject being made next week. Of course, the House has plenty of other parliamentary opportunities, including questions.

Mr. Gavin Strang: While recognising the importance of the debate on Gartcosh next Thursday in Opposition time, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the sense of outrage in Scotland at the Government's attitude to the campaign to save Gartcosh? That attitude includes the Prime Minister's contemptuous refusal to meet the Gartcosh marchers and the refusal of the Secretary of State for Scotland to allow a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on Monday. Because Gartcosh is crucial to Ravenscraig which is crucial to Scotland's future as an industrial nation, may we have the assurance that there will be a proper debate in Government time on this whole issue, including the Government's response to the Select Committee report?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the very strong and genuine feelings that have been aroused over the proposed closure of Gartcosh, but there is the other side of the argument: the question of bringing about greater viability in the industrial structures of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. I am sure that those matters will be covered in next week's debate. I hope that that debate will enable the House to take account of the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Foreign Office statement next week? I ask for this statement because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), recently made an important statement in Bangladesh concerning the requirement of Her Majesty's Government that the children of British citizens who intend to seek entry into this country should undergo genetic testing. There is considerable concern about this matter, including the cost, and whether these tests will be entirely voluntary. A statement would enable answers to these important questions to be given. It would also allow the Foreign Office to explain why it introduced in secret on 19 December a new entry clearance charge of £25 for those seeking settlement in this country and a fee of £12 for those seeking entry clearance as visitors to this country.

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer those points of substance to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister, in particular, among other Government Ministers, is adopting the growing practice of answering questions by saying that information cannot be given because of the disproportionate cost involved. Does the Leader of the House not think, because of all the talk about open government, especially in view of the furore that is taking place on another front, that it is the Government's duty to explain precisely their answers to simple questions? Is he aware, for instance, that this week there was an appalling situation when I asked the Prime Minister how many gifts she had received as Prime Minister and how many of those over the value of £75 she had retained, taking into account the allegation made in a national newspaper that she had received a bracelet costing several thousand pounds from the Sultan of Brunei, but she refused to explain how many gifts she had received.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that he would ask a short question

Mr. Skinner: Well, it is a little bracelet.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman at least ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a statement about the bracelet?

Mr. Skinner: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister will not answer these questions, will the Leader of the House bring her to the Dispatch Box and ask her to answer questions about what happened about the diamond-studded bracelet and all the other gifts that she will not disclose? There is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a rule that anything over £75 should not be retained by the Minister concerned.

Mr. Biffen: One of the most dangerous things in this House is the hon. Member for Bolsover in a fit of innocence or simplicity or in a fit of trying to get just a plain, honest, working man's answer to what otherwise is thought to be a tangled and exotic problem. I take note of what he says and I shall make the appropriate references. But I shall also reflect upon a point of real substance: the growing cost of questions in this House that are not necessarily related to the pursuit of open government, but are related to the existence of whole squadrons of research assistants. We have to ask ourselves whether this really is pursuing the investigative role of Parliament. On the whole, the hon. Member for Bolsover is not a great cost to the public purse as far as his questions are concerned. That is why I shall take his point with the seriousness that it merits.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The easiest way to cut the cost of questions is to give truthful answers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a point of order for me.

Sports Grounds (Popplewell Report)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the final report of the inquiry into safety and control at sports grounds under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Popplewell, which was published today. The statement is a little longer than I would have wished. It consists of 14 paragraphs. The inquiry was established following the fire at Bradford City football ground and the events at Birmingham City on 11 May 1985.
Now that the inquiry's work is completed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I would like to renew the Government's gratitude to the chairman and his two assessors for the speed and conscientiousness with which they have discharged their difficult task. In addition to dealing with the events at the Heysel stadium in Brussels on 29 May and discussing the causes of hooliganism, the final report makes 15 recommendations on crowd safety and crowd control.
On crowd control, there are a number of recommendations about the maintenance of order at football grounds: wider powers of police search and arrest; a new offence of disorderly conduct at sports grounds, and a review of the recent alcohol legislation as it applies to executive boxes. Continued progress with membership schemes is also recommended.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act which came into force on 1 January has already extended the police powers of search and of arrest in ways which will help them deal with troublemakers at football grounds. I shall examine Mr. Justice Popplewell's recommendations for further powers when we see how the new Act works in practice.
On disorderly conduct, the Public Order Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading on Monday, seeks to create a new offence which will cover hooliganism in football grounds, as elsewhere. I shall consider the recommendation for a wider offence when we see how the offence in the Bill—disorderly conduct—works in practice.
The Government have already taken a number of steps to deal with forms of misconduct about which Mr. Justice Popplewell expresses particular concern. The Public Order Bill seeks to implement a recommendation in his interim report that the possession of smoke bombs and similar devices at sports grounds be made an offence. We have taken action to ban some other items which may be used as missiles. The alcohol legislation which was passed last summer makes it an offence to be in possession of a drinks can or bottle in any area of the grounds from which the pitch may be viewed direct.
During the proceedings in the House, representations were made about the effect on the revenue which clubs derive from executive boxes. The Government undertook to monitor the situation, and I have received some information from the Football League and representations from a number of right hon. and hon. Members. I have asked for more information from the football authorities and will wish to consider that carefully, in the light of what Mr. Justice Popplewell says, before deciding whether to allow some relaxation of the controls on alcohol in executive boxes. I shall report my conclusions to the House while the Public Order Bill is before Parliament.
On membership cards, we fully endorse Mr. Justice Popplewell's recommendation. The Public Order Bill contains provisions to enable the courts to ban convicted football hooligans from attending matches. This shows our determination to do what we can to keep troublemakers away from football grounds and to restore the good name of British football. It needs to be matched, in our view, by equally determined action by the football clubs and the football authorities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has emphasised to them the value of an effective membership card system. The football authorities have made some progress on this. In the light of the exclusion order scheme in the Public Order Bill, I hope that they will now redouble their efforts.
I deal now with crowd safety. We accept the need to strengthen urgently the measures already announced by and taken following my predecessor's statements on 13 May and 24 July.
We accept the recommendation that all sports grounds and sports stadiums in England and Wales with accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators and where association football, rugby league, rugby union and cricket are played which are not already designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 should be so designated. Consultations will begin immediately with the sports authorities and organisations concerned with a view to introducing the necessary orders as quickly as possible, and certainly by the summer of this year.
In Scotland, my right hon. Friend intends to introduce similarly, as soon as he can, an order designating stadiums of clubs with accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators in the first and second divisions of the Scottish Football League.
We also accept the principle of the recommendations that safety controls should be extended to all sports grounds and stadiums with stands for over 500 spectators and to indoor sports facilities with accommodation for over 500 spectators where adequate controls do not already exist. We need more facts about this. The present information that we hold at the centre is limited to stadiums and grounds with accommodation for 5,000 or more, and indoor premises with an overall capacity of more than 1,000.
The first step will be to establish the full practical effects of these recommendations. All the relevant local and fire authorities in England, Wales and Scotland are to be invited to inspect all such stands and premises not previously inspected, and to report on them to my right hon. Friend and myself. Powers are already immediately available under both the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to deal with any exceptional hazard which might be found in the course of these inspections. Similarly, chief fire officers and firemasters will be invited to keep under review the places that they inspected under previous initiatives last year, with the object of maintaining safety standards at those places.
When we have considered these inspections we shall quickly issue a consultative document and propose ways of achieving the objectives of the inquiry's final report, fitting this into the review already under way on the future of the Fire Precautions Act. Further legislation may well prove necessary. There will be no avoidable risk meanwhile, because any necessary emergency action can be taken under existing powers.
So far, happily, the figures this season show an improvement in the number of arrests and ejections from football grounds. Our measures against hooliganism should have a cumulative effect, but it is too soon to be satisfied. We have to deal not only with hooliganism, but with safety; not only with football grounds, but with sports grounds in general. Thanks in large part to Mr. Justice Popplewell and his colleagues, I believe that we are on the right track.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate Mr. Justice Popplewell on his second report. His recommendations for the improvement of fire safety precautions and the plugging of gaps in them and in the legislation are both welcome and necessary, and I trust that the Government will lose no time in implementing them. Where legislation is necessary, we will facilitate it. The new and highly unsatisfactory building regulations of November 1985 must be changed as a matter of urgency, and I ask for an assurance that this will be done.
The Home Secretary is prudent in his approach to the proposed new criminal offences, but I am sorry that he said nothing about the proposal in the interim report for a specific offence of chanting racist abuse. The football authorities and the overwhelming majority of fans agree that racism is an obscenity that must be expunged from football and from other sports. I ask the Home Secretary whether this is covered by clause 19 of the Public Order Bill. It is is not, will he amend the Bill to include it?
Is the Home Secretary really satisfied with the position under the Public Order Bill under which the Government have decided not to exclude convicted hooligans from matches played abroad, including World Cup matches? The Home Secretary spoke of the need to restore the good name of British football. Surely this is nowhere more necessary than when violent louts travel abroad and sully the reputation of British fans.
The Opposition are content with the recommendation for a review of section 3(3) of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act, but we insist that it be carried out on the basis of the criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Hattersley) last July, when he said:
We want equity. There should be no difference between the working man on the terrace having his half pint with his pie and people in boxes having wine with their meals."—[Official Report, 3 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 448.]
One curious gap in the Home Secretary's statement was his failure to mention closed circuit television, which Mr. Justice Popplewell firmly recommended last July and which the previous Home Secretary strongly endorsed. Far too little progress has been made, with only 21 per cent. of grounds being covered by closed circuit TV. One reason for this unsatisfactory progress is lack of money. Even the richest clubs face problems, and the less affluent have simply no chance of raising the revenue to comply with Mr. Justice Popplewell's recommendations. In his statement the Home Secretary made no mention of these financial obstacles, so I repeat the commitment of the Labour party to create a football levy board, which would return to the game some of the massive revenue that the Treasury extracts from it.
So far this season there has been a distinct improvement inside the grounds. I congratulate the football authorities and the police on what they have achieved in helping to rescue the reputation of a vital and popular national sport. As Mr. Justice Popplewell points out, however, the

problems of violence and hooliganism are moving outside the grounds and are being seen ever more clearly as just one alarming and depressing manifestation of the sickness of violence that is afflicting Britain. We cannot be satisfied until we have set our hand to eradicating not only the violence itself but the underlying causes, which are far too deeply rooted in our society.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the general tone of what he said.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking carefully at the building regulations, and the right hon. Gentleman may want to pursue the matter elsewhere.
As the right hon. Gentleman would have wished, we gave very careful thought to the question of racist chanting. Part III of the Public Order Bill will extend the existing offence of incitement to stir up racial hatred to conduct intended to do so. I hope that that will be particularly significant when we come to the kind of shouting that mars football matches. We thought it more sensible to concentrate on that—the details of it will be discussed in Committee—than to create a wider offence which would be confined to football matches and would be very difficult to enforce.
I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about exclusion orders. He was a little sceptical about them on Monday, but he seems a little more enthusiastic about them today, because he wants them extended to foreign fields. There would be difficulty in implementing them, but it is a point that we can perfectly reasonably discuss in Committee.
From what I have heard—I come new to this subject—I am a little puzzled about the Opposition's attitude to executive boxes. There is quite strong pressure from the clubs for a relaxation. I have not announced a relaxation today, but the pressure for it has come from both sides of the House, and I am not quite clear where the Labour party stands on this issue. There will be opportunities to discuss this before we are much older.
The right hon. Gentleman, perfectly understandably, homed in on finance. The general principle that people who are offering the public entertainment or sport should be prepared to do so in conditions which are clearly and evidently safe is a general one which most people would accept. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister with responsibility for sport, who is here, had a working group which looked into the financial implications for football. The Football Trust, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has done valuable work and assumed valuable responsibilities in this context. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend say more about the introduction of membership cards? Is he satisfied that the football authorities are determined to introduce a scheme, or are they still just going through the motions because they do not want to do it?

Mr. Hurd: As I said, they have made some progress in recent times. The latest figure that I have—I would not vouch for it being absolutely up to date—is that 15 clubs out of the 92 have introduced, or are about to introduce, membership schemes which cover at least 50 per cent. of their ground capacity. I know that my right hon. Friend has a close interest in this matter. We would like to see greater progress.

Mr. Michael Foot: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in welcoming most of the proposals. I am especially glad to hear that the daft idea that people be prevented from attending away games of football, as a solution to the problem, has been dropped.
May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the financial question? If no money is corning in in one form or another—plenty of money is being made from football, as my right hon. Friend said—and if no money is to be provided for carrying through, at the necessary speed, the real safety programme, many clubs, particularly the small ones, will be hit again and again, and many will be driven out of business. I urge the Home Secretary to look at the whole of this matter again and come back with a proposal which will enable all clubs, large and small, to make their grounds safe in a measureable time—say two years

Mr. Hurd: Before I answer the right hon. Gentleman, I apologise to the right hon. Member for Gorton for not answering his question about closed circuit television. The latest figures that I have show that of 42 clubs in the first and second divisions of the football league, 25 have closed circuit television, and that nine out of the 10 clubs in the Scottish premier division have it or are having it installed. In addition, there are the three, I hope by now famous, Home Office "hoolivans", which are doing valuable work. That is progress, although there is room for more.
I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in our debate on the Public Order Bill, and I understand how strongly he feels about the matter. I must refer back to the working group of my hon. Friend, which considered the financing of safety improvements at Football League grounds; that is, at the 92 grounds where the professional game is played. Its preliminary conclusions are that the clubs, together with the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, can fund the cost of the work over a five-year period. The FGIT is funded by the Football Trust, which in turn is funded by the Football Pools Promoters Association. My hon. Friend and the sports councils are open to representation and are willing to give advice on these matters, but so far progress has been reasonally good.

Sir Hector Monro: I congratulate Mr. Justice Popplewell on his report, and my right hon. Friend on his speedy response to it. Will he be careful not to make any change in the alcohol restriction until the end of the season, to see whether the much improved behaviour is continued through to the end of the World Cup? May I suggest that with the complexity of modern world sport there is a good case for the Minister with responsibility for sport having overall responsibility for crowd safety, sports and international events, rather than having his responsibilities spread over three Departments?

Mr. Hurd: I thought my hon. Friend was about to suggest that he should be responsible for these matters in Scotland. I am in difficulties about the alcohol restriction. If we are to have a relaxation, the natural vehicle for it is the Public Order Bill, which had its Second Reading on Monday. I said that I would give my conclusions to the House during its passage, so that if the House generally believed that the restriction should be relaxed, it could be relaxed without delay. That runs counter to the greater caution recommended by my hon. Friend, but it is a

reasonable compromise between those who want immediate relaxation and those who hold my hon. Friend's view.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the Minister accept that one cannot have safety on the cheap? Further to the statement of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), does the Minister accept that considerable sums are slushing around in football and that taxing transfer fees or finding the available money would be a more sensible way of ensuring safety than would hitting the dwindling numbers of supporters, and punishing small clubs which cannot afford the improvements? Will he give the House his statistics on the diminution of violence and ejections? Is it not simply the case that he has compared the beginning of this season with the end of last season?

Mr. Hurd: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about finance. I do not wish to repeat the reply that I have already given which shows that the machinery at work and the funds available seem capable of financing the safety work. If certain sports have particular problems, it seems reasonable that they should go to the sports councils or my hon. Friend the Minister for advice. The hon. Gentleman will accept that my figures are incomplete. According to the Metropolitan police department, until 11 January 1986 the number of ejections and arrests from football grounds in London was 1,470, compared with 2,652 last year—a reduction of 44 per cent. In Greater Manchester gates have increased by 6 per cent., and arrests and ejections have decreased by 56 per cent.—that is on a December comparison. The hon. Gentleman is right to be cautious, and I was cautious in my comments. Neverthless, so far the record this season has considerably improved.

Sir Dudley Smith: May I call my right hon. Friend's attention specifically to the fact that the biggest problem may be the number of people who arrive at a ground having consumed an excessive amount of alcohol? Is he aware of the great unfairness between clubs over the provision of alcohol? In some clubs it is available in hospitality suites and at certain bars of the grounds, whereas in others no drink is supplied, not even in the boardroom. As there have been no examples of trouble arising from the provision of alcohol in executive suites, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter, bearing in mind the income of clubs?

Mr. Hurd: That point was widely discussed during the passage of the Bill last Session. Parliament deliberately included in the Bill a wide measure of local options so that local magistrates could consider, on local criteria and arguments, the case for exemptions from the general rule. That has happened, with the result which my hon. Friend criticises. It is a reasonable principle that local magistrates should have that facility.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Does the Home Secretary accept that most football supporters are likely to accept the recommendations of Mr. Justice Popplewell? Does he further accept that most football clubs will be disappointed with his response, in particular to recommendation 14, which relates to the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985, especially in view of the Minister of State's reply on 3 July? I asked the hon. Gentleman when he was likely to make a judgment after the monitoring of the Bill and he replied:


It would be sensible if we saw the Bill in action over the most part of this coming season, or at least half of it … That might allow us, if we were so minded, and after discussion … to introduce amendments through other legislation … The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that we shall monitor this because we recognise that if football were to be starved of funds for its improvement and rehabilitation, that would be a worry."—[Official Report, July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 458.]
Will the Home Secretary recognise that that evidence has been forthcoming from the all-party football committee, the Football League and many others, and that unless, before next season, clubs have the knowledge that the restriction will be amended by the Public Order Bill, many executive boxes will be unfilled, and many clubs will be starved of their funds?

Mr. Hurd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which he has put strongly on many occasions. It is different from the view of the Labour Front Bench. We are doing precisely what my hon. Friend said we would do, which is monitoring how the position develops, and what effect the rule has primarily on grounds, and on clubs' finances. We have some information, but we are asking for more. I have already explained that we thought that a reasonable compromise was to give our conclusions while the Public Order Bill was still before the House so that if hon. Members felt that there should be a relaxation, we could proceed accordingly. We can give our views on that.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: Although it has taken a major tragedy to bring it about, we have a report which, if all its recommendations are implemented, will mean that all spectators at sporting events in future can feel confident that all that can be done will be done to ensure their safety. The people of Bradford and elsewhere will be grateful to Mr. Justice Popplewell for that. Will my right hon. Friend review the point in the report that the same venue can be used for both sporting and entertainment purposes, but that different safety standards can apply? Will he review the necessary legislation to amend that anomaly?

Mr. Hurd: That point was not covered in my statement, and I shall certainly look further into the matter which my hon. Friend, who represents a Bradford constituency, raises.

Mr. Peter Snape: May I, as one who watches professional soccer as often as possible, assure the Home Secretary that most of us welcome the recommendations of the Popplewell inquiry? One point that appears to have been overlooked in the report is the question of football supporters travelling by coach. Many coaches arrive at the destination town, although not necessarily the football ground, sometimes hours before the kick-off, and similarly on the way back many coaches stop short of their destination, thus enabling many supporters to consume perhaps a large amount of alcohol.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) in his plea for the abolition of the illogical alcohol ban in executive boxes. Notwithstanding the voting propensities of those who use the boxes, the fact is that most of them do not rampage around the town in the way that some football supporters do. We ought to remember that this ban is penalising clubs, such as West Bromwich Albion, which have spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds in providing executive boxes.
Lastly, I ask the Home Secretary to look again at the question of a football betting levy board. Surely the game of working people ought to be treated in the same way as racing, the so-called sport of kings?

Mr. Hurd: There is obviously something in the hon. Gentleman's first point, but I do not think that it can be solved by changing the law again. It is surely mainly a matter for co-operation between the police and the coach operators, but let us look further into that.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about executive boxes. He has to deal with the argument of equity; the argument which his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was putting. Indeed, the House too will have to deal with the point in due course. I do not think that a case has been made for a new system of the kind put forward by the Labour party and by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).

Several Hon. Members: rose
——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions to continue for a further 15 minutes. I hope that in that time every hon. Member wishing to ask a question will be called. I ask for brief questions, as two important debates are to be held thereafter.

Mr. Max Madden: Can the Home Secretary say when the promises made by the Prime Minister and the former Minister with responsibility for sport that Bradford City football club would receive additional financial assistance to rebuild its ground will be honoured?

Mr. Hurd: I shall have to look into that, and either my hon. Friend or I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. John Wheeler: While warmly welcoming the Popplewell report, may I ask my hon. Friend to look in particular at recommendation 4 in the final report, about responsibility for safety going to one local authority; and, in the interim report, at the important recommendation that police radio systems be improved?

Mr. Hurd: I should like to reflect further on the first point. I fully agree with the second. We are following that up.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend give any figures for disturbances in the current season? Will he take note of the contrast between the rather better standard of conduct that one might find at a rugby football ground, such as Twickenham, and the rather lower standard of behaviour at some soccer grounds?

Mr. Hurd: I would not dream of entering on the second comparison, because I think that I could not easily escape from it.
On the first point. I have given the House the figures that I have, which are in terms not so much of disturbances as of arrests and ejections. I think that that is the handiest way of giving the figures. I have done that in respect of both the Metropolitan police district and Greater Manchester. They show a welcome improvement.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I echo the word of caution that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) entered. There is a danger that we could impose conditions on clubs—be they football, rugby or cricket clubs—which the clubs simply could not meet


financially, and we would not achieve anything by putting them out of existence. Is the Home Secretary seriously suggesting that we should designate clubs such as Stranraer, Cowdenbeath and Berwick Rangers in Scotland where there is never more than a total of 300 or 400 people at the game? Would it not be better to continue with the present arrangement in Scotland whereby the grounds that are not designated are subject to crowd control limits by police on occasions when there are larger than normal sporting events?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has grasped what I was announcing, and I do not blame him—it is complicated. Almost all the big football and rugby league fields are already designated. What I have announced today will cover about eight cricket grounds, about 20 rugby union grounds, about 18 football grounds outside the league in England and Wales, and I think about 25 in Scotland, but the test is a capacity of over 10,000. Most of these grounds are for designation, and all these grounds have been covered as a result of the inspections that took place after May last year. I imagine that in the great majority of them any necessary work is already in hand or is being planned. What I have announced about designation, and what Mr. Justice Popplewell recommended in this respect, is a completing and tidying up operation, rather than a large new development.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend accept the conclusion in paragraph 4·86 that the effect of the Sporting Events Control of Alcohol etc. Act 1985—about which there has been a chorus this afternoon, quite rightly—on clubs will be "little short of disastrous"? Will he appreciate that this revenue which is not coming into the game could have been used for the improvement of grounds? Will he give urgent consideration to a review of the Act? If he does not act well before the end of the season, plans will be laid for next season which will have the same effect and that money will not be available for the clubs. May we please have an early debate on the whole subject?

Mr. Hurd: I understand the force of what my hon. Friend says. As he rightly points out, it was endorsed by Mr. Justice Popplewell and, indeed, by at least two Opposition Members, so we shall certainly have to come back to this. What I would ask is that the clubs give us more precise facts and figures to back up their argument.
My hon. Friend put the question of a debate to the Leader of the House during business questions, and I shall be in touch with my right hon. Friend about it. However, I should not like to make any definite promise, given that there will be other opportunities to discuss several aspects of the matter, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Further to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), and touching upon the question asked by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), there was a firm promise by the Minister of State that there would be a review and a report would be made halfway through the Session. We are now over halfway through the Session, people are making plans and revenue will be lost between now and the end of the season in advance bookings for

executive boxes. The Minister of State and other Members have visited Manchester United and seen the problem. I believe that a firm promise was made to that club. I urge the Home Secretary to move rather faster than he is now indicating to the House he intends to do.

Mr. Hurd: I think that what I indicated to the House is on all fours with what my hon. Friend said previously. That is what he said we would do, and that is what we are doing. We will give our conclusions while the Public Order Bill is before the House. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton about the attitude of the Opposition Front Bench on this matter.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to page 60 at 5.90, where it says at subparagraph II (a):
Thus those not particularly given to violence witness violence in others and see it being exercised, without let or hindrance.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conduct of the players in this case is regularly far from exemplary? They jump all over each other, they hug and kiss each other, and they fight each other. It is not conducive to good conduct on the terraces. Will he see what he can do, in consultation with the Football Association, to tighten discipline in this respect?

Mr. Hurd: I think that it would be a little difficult to draft a clause to cover all the activities to which my hon. Friend refers. This clearly must be a matter for those within the sport, and I am sure that they will have noticed what Mr. Justice Popplewell has said, and the way in which my hon. Friend has endorsed it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Why has the Home Secretary not accepted Mr. Justice Popplewell's strongly expressed view that the safety of undesignated buildings and stadiums should be the responsibility of one authority? The right hon. Gentleman says that he has powers to deal with emergencies while inspections are being carried out, but Mr. Justice Popplewell doubted whether all indoor activities, in Scotland in particular, were covered by such powers, and he asked for a review of the powers. Has that review been set in train?

Mr. Hurd: We are reviewing that aspect. We are in a difficulty over timing, because there is a strong case for revising the 1971 Act in relation to fire safety and control. We are in the middle of doing that and we might ask the House to consider proposals during this Parliament. Mr. Justice Popplewell's proposal for further use of the 1971 Act comes in the middle of the review, so that an awkwardness is caused. If the hon. Gentleman studies my complicated statement he will see how we are trying, procedurally, to find a way through that awkwardness, which involves indoor sports as well as others. I have neither accepted nor rejected the proposal which the hon. Gentleman mentioned at the beginning of his question, so we shall come back to it.

Mr. James Couchman: I do not want to do the question of money to death, but the great aspiration of the club in my constituency is promotion from the third to the second division. It does not pay high wages, and it pays no large transfer fees. It is a responsible club, which has taken on many recommendations, but the Popplewell recommendations will put further severe financial


restraints on its activities. Will my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the possibility of giving back to football more of the money that goes to the football pools?

Mr. Hurd: That is a long-standing suggestion, supported by aficionados of the game, but it does not seem to be making much headway. My hon. Friend should obtain the facts and figures for his club, to illustrate the difficulties which he foresees. The work that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has accomplished with his working group suggests that necessary work in the 92 areas on which he has been concentrating can be undertaken with existing resources, but the sports councils and my hon. Friend are available to advise on how necessary work can be done.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I praise the imaginative way in which the Popplewell inquiry went about its work. May I also draw attention to the sad story of the opaque glass panels mentioned in paragraph 4·88, because Scotland's leading club, Heart of Midlothian, has had to erect a panel so that people having a drink cannot watch the game. Is that not absurd? How much will clubs lose if something is not done about the stormy and difficult problem of executive eating places? What about the "casuals" mentioned in the report?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman asks about loss of revenue because of the rules for executive boxes. I am asking for the figures. I have anecdotal figures, but we need more if we are to overcome the equity objection. We are being asked from several parts of the House to distinguish between people in executive boxes and people on the terraces. We do not want to create the impression that people in executive boxes are more law-abiding than the many thousands—the majority—on the terraces. I am not endorsing the argument, but summarising the argument that prevails, not least because of the advocacy of the right hon. Member for Gorton when the Bill was being discussed. We must examine the matter again when we have the necessary figures.
I had not heard of the "casuals" until my attention was drawn to the relevant paragraph in the report. I understand from Scottish colleagues that there is close co-operation between the police in Scotland and the clubs in dealing with that serious mischief.

Mr. Tony Favell: A compulsory system under which one must produce a membership card before entering a ground is clearly impracticable, especially at large grounds. Does not the difficulty and expense of such a system demonstrate the desirability of having national identity cards for everyone? In view of hon. Members' interest in everything European, I remind the House that many countries in Europe operate a national identity card system.

Mr. Hurd: That suggestion is made in various contexts these days. Any Government would have great difficulty in persuading Parliament of the need for such a restriction. Limited but welcome progress has been made by the Football League and by clubs in introducing membership card systems which cover at least 50 per cent. of ground capacity. That is what the football authorities asked them to do. Particularly because of the proposal for exclusion orders which the football authorities have welcomed, and because we are doing our bit in the Public Order Bill to

help, we hope that the clubs will do their bit to accelerate and perhaps take more seriously the membership card system proposal.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Home Secretary aware that the answers that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and to other hon. Members on both sides of the House show a certain complacency towards the financial crises affecting clubs in England and Wales, and particularly those in Scotland? Does he accept the importance of the football game to our people? Does he recognise that is not just a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for the Environment, because he has responsibility for securing money, either through public subsidy or from the football pools, to help clubs to improve their grounds for safety and other reasons?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman neglects an additional principle, which is that when any body offers entertainment or sport to the community its basic responsibility is to ensure that the entertainment or sport is conducted in safe conditions. That is a basic, underlying responsibility of those taking the initiative and organising the game or entertainment.
However, realising that there might be a problem, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary took the initiative on football in his working group, which suggested that it would be wrong to exaggerate the scale of the problem. It would also be wrong to exaggerate the new requirements or impositions which I announced today. There may be a problem in some cases and that is why my hon. Friend and the sports councils are available for consultation.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 5·87 and Mr. Justice Popplewell's conclusion that the evidence does not support the proposition that unemployment and violence at football grounds are connected? People will expect the courts to hand out adequate sentences to violent offenders, so does not that proposition have significance when we discuss the problem of violence generally?
May I also put in a plea for small football clubs, such as Scunthorpe United, which is operated by people who are not after profit? That club's capacity might be over 10,000, but the gate is usually less than 2,000. Onerous financial obligations will be placed upon such clubs through having to take new fire and safety precautions.

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to paragraph 5·87 of the report. As regards the football club in his constituency, I repeat the advice that I have given to others. If the capacity at the ground is much greater than the numbers who go to the ground, the club may well have the option to restrict its capacity and so come below the level. That is the type of semi-technical problem on which the club may well need advice, and which it will receive.

Mr. John Ryman: As one of the leading football clubs in the country, Blyth Spartans, is in my constituency, may I ask the Secretary of State to consider one point which has not been dealt with? This is the question of enforcement. He no doubt appreciates from his earlier experience as Minister of State, Home Office the great difficulties that racecourses have in enforcing exclusions on people who have been warned off


racecourses for nefarious reasons. What specific proposals does the Secretary of State have to ensure that football clubs are able to enforce entrance bans to their grounds?

Mr. Hurd: One will never achieve 100 per cent. enforcement. However, as the arrangements to deal with such problems grow—closed circuit television and the circulation of photographs—people will be increasingly detereed from the kind of hooliganism which mars the game.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome the national membership scheme, and Leicester City was one of the pioneers in instituting it.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraphs 4·77 and 4·84 of the report. Paragraph 4·77 refers to drink inside a spectator at a football ground. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that face the grounds at the moment when so-called supporters stop off at the nearby garages and motorway service stations and tank up, not only with petrol, but with alcohol? Surely the way to deal with this problem is to withdraw the off-licence.
Paragraph 4·84 of the report refers to the closure of pubs. The police can request that a number of pubs round the football ground be closed. The police do not request the closure of supermarkets and off-licences, except in exceptional circumstances. Enforcement should be made to prevent any alcohol being available outside the ground.

Mr. Hurd: The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985 gives local magistrates considerable powers in these matters. It is for the police and for the magistrates, in each locality, to study what happens there and to work out a system to use their powers effectively.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for being absent when he made his statement. It is apparent from the questions that have been asked that Mr. Justice Popplewell's proposals will impose financial obligations on the football clubs. I hope my right hon. Friend will not close his mind to the proposals made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr.

Snape) to widen the horserace betting levy to a general betting levy for the good of all sport. Many feel that there is merit in that proposal.

Mr. Hurd: That is an interesting proposal, which goes fairly wide. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and the House will not gallop away with the idea that there are no resources available for this purpose. I have already mentioned the Football Grounds Improvement Trust. I gather that the sum of £8 million has been made available to the trust for the purposes of which we have spoken. That is a substantial annual sum. The great bulk of the work of designation has been done, so there are limits to the scale of the problems that worry hon. Members.

Mr. Kaufman: I wish to deal with section 3(3) Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985. The Home Secretary says, fairly, that he comes fresh to these matters. When we were consulted by his predecessor on the draft Bill we insisted upon equity, and his right hon. and learned Friend, after considering the possibilities, chose the form of equity that is in the Bill. When other forms of equity were later broached with him he set his face against them and, as a result, we have the Bill in its present form. As I said in the later stages, the implication of that equity has been financially troubling to the football clubs.
I repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). We continue to insist on equity, but we are content with the proposals of Mr. Justice Popplewell and I wish to say that specifically today. However, this matter should be reconsidered. It appears that the Secretary of State intends that changes in this matter will be in an amendment to the Public Order Bill as it travels through the House. I suggest that it would be appropriate, at a time that the Secretary of State considers suitable, to enter into discussions so that we can arrive at a form of equity that is of assistance to the football clubs.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. It certainly clarifies something which has hitherto been somewhat obscure. Let us discuss this when the time comes.

Official Report

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has been very patient. Would he like to put his point of order briefly? I think that I can help him.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order which I broached immediately after Prime Minister's Question Time. When I checked my speech in Hansard this morning I noticed the quotation, referred to in column 1150, which I quoted from the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on Monday. I am reported as having quoted from his quotation as follows:
whether the Government had received a letter from".—[Official Report, 15 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 1150.]
My recollection is that I quoted more extensively—
whether the Government had received a letter from the chairman"—
and went on to say,
who is Sir Austin Pearce".
I want to draw the attention of the House to this because of its crucial significance. I believe that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was consciously deceiving the House, and it is important that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would wish to say "consciously".

Mr. Strang: I withdraw that. I do not wish to prolong this, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you will address yourself to what I think is an important correction to the substance of my speech.

Mr. Speaker: If I have this right the hon. Gentleman wishes Hansard to correct the quotation to read, whether the Government had received a letter from the chairman",
and to add,
who is Sir Austin Pearce.
I will arrange for that to be done.

BILL PRESENTED

AIRPORTS

Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Howe, Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Baker and Mr. Michael Spicer, presented a Bill to provide for the dissolution of the British Airports Authority and the vesting of its property, rights and liabilities in a company nominated by the Secretary of State; to provide for the reorganisation of other airport undertakings in the public sector; to provide for the regulation of the use of airports and for the imposition of economic controls at certain airports; to make other amendments of the law relating to airports; to make provision with respect to the control of capital expenditure by local authority airport undertakings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 60].

European Community (Fisheries)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling: ): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memoranda dated 10th December 1985 on 1986 total allowable catches and quotas, on modifications to the proposed 1986 total allowable catches and quotas and on the fisheries agreement for 1986 between the European Community and Norway, of European Community Documents Nos. 9284/85 on amendments to Regulation 2057/82 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of Member States, 8662/85 on the allocation of flat rate quantities of hake, horse mackerel and blue whiting to Spain, and 10047/85 on 1986 fish guide prices; and welcomes and approves the provisional agreement reached on these arrangements for 1986 with the improvements obtained for the United Kingdom fishing industry.
The motion makes it clear that this afternoon's debate covers a number of documents on European Community fisheries legislation, most of which are concerned with fishing arrangements for 1986. These documents have been recommended for further consideration of the House by the Select Committee on European Legislation, for whose vigilant scrutiny we are all most grateful.
Though I will necessarily be going into a good deal of detail on some of the matters involved, the broad principles of the common fisheries policy are of course now well established following the first-class deal that the Government negotiated in 1983.
Since the House last debated the common fisheries policy on 10 January last, this deal has been consolidated by the successful conclusion of the accession arrangements with Spain and Portugal. Now, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already reported to the House, we have once again been able to negotiate a satisfactory package of quotas and associated measures for 1986 in time for the beginning of the year, only this time it covers a Community of 12 nations, not just of 10. There can be no doubt that the common fisheries policy is, indeed, proving to be every bit as successful as we hoped.
The first group of unnumbered explanatory memoranda referred to in the motion concerns the Commission's proposals for the total allowable catches and quotas for 1986 and the associated fishing arrangements for 1986 under the European Community-Norway agreement. I should explain that these proposals were produced only 10 days before the Fisheries Council on 16–17 December. Following lengthy negotiations at that Council, and an additional meeting of the Council on 20 December, a compromise package emerged to which all the other member states were able to agree.
I considered the package very satisfactory for the United Kingdom but, in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee, I thought it right to enter a formal reservation on the adoption of the regulations on TACs and quotas and on Norway, pending a debate in the House. So that fishing should not be interrupted, I agreed, following the same procedure as last year, that the regulations should be adopted on an interim basis until 25 January only, pending clarification of the United Kingdom's position following completion of our parliamentary scrutiny procedures.
I shall now outline the main elements of interest to he United Kingdom, starting with the North sea joint stocks. As the House is aware, the TACs for these stocks are


agreed with Norway in the light of the latest scientific evidence. For 1986, there are increases in the availability of haddock and saithe but decreases for cod, plaice and whiting. The higher United Kingdom quotas of haddock and saithe, representing increases of 12·8 and 25·2 per cent. respectively, will be welcomed by our fishermen, given the reduction in our North sea cod quota to 75,790 tonnes, brought about by the current situation of the cod stock on which I know that the House will share my concern.
The total allowable catch of 170,000 tonnes for North sea cod agreed with Norway reflects this and, although the reduction is naturally a considerable disappointment to those sectors of the industry involved, I believe that they recognise it as necessary and realistic to protect that fishery.
On North sea herring, I shall refer later to the Commission's negotiations with Norway on the share-out of the stock in 1986 between Norway and the Community. At this point, I should like only to draw attention to the fact that the combined TAC for the North sea has been increased yet again, this time to 570,000 tonnes with the possibility of further growth in future. The United Kingdom quota for the northern and central North sea,—IVA and IVB— which are the areas of main interest to our fishermen, is increased by more than 13,000 tonnes to 71,615 tonnes, on top of which we have secured a further 5,700 tonnes through quota swaps agreed in the margins of the Council.
Thus, we have obtained a substantial increase in our herring opportunities in the North sea.
As for stocks outside the north sea, the TACs for haddock and herring to the west of Scotland will be lower than in 1985, reflecting the clear scientific advice on the state of the stocks. Nonetheless, I am pleased to report that I was able to ensure that the reduction on herring, in particular, will not be as great as that originally proposed by the Commission, which is a matter of considerable importance for the west coast herring fishery.
For western mackerel, the Commission originally proposed a very substantial reduction in the TAC. This proposal was increased at the Council meeting, resulting in a TAC of 362,000 tonnes—a reduction of 11·6 per cent.—giving the United Kingdom a quota of 195,950 tonnes. This stock is of great importance to the United Kingdom fishing industry, and I am sure that the industry will appreciate the need for this reduction to maintain the longer-term viability of that stock.
For the whitefish stocks in area VII, which, I remind the House, includes the English channel, the Irish sea, the Bristol channel and the western approaches, there are several increases, which have been warmly welcomed by the industry. During 1985, these stocks continued to attract a considerable amount of attention, and, although we were able to negotiate a number of quota swaps with other member states, it was necessary to restrict fishing and, in some cases, to close fisheries before the end of the year. For 1986, our opportunities for most of these stocks will be greater than last year. Our Council package gives us an overall increase of 250 tonnes in our sole quotas. In addition, we were able to obtain a further 380 tonnes, mainly in the Irish sea, through a swap with the Netherlands, giving us a total increase of about one third in our availability in area VII.
For plaice, I was able at last to obtain a considerable increase in the TAC for Bristol channel plaice, which will increase our quota by 90 tonnes. I know that this will be most welcome, especially to the local Welsh fishermen. We have also achieved an increase in our quota for English channel plaice.
The stocks included in the Commission's second TACs and quotas proposal are those which needed to be added or amended as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal. For western hake, our quota is increased by 760 tonnes. For monkfish and megrim in areas VI and VII, the quotas for 1985 did not reflect the existing pattern of fishing by us or other member states. The United Kingdom's quotas for 1986 have been increased and redistributed between the areas to reflect more accurately the present pattern of fishing there.
In accordance with the accession treaty, TACs and quotas were set for Norway lobster, also known as nephrops, and pollock in areas VI and VII. The Commission's proposals for these stocks were, for member states other than Spain and Portugal, based largely on the available catch figures for previous years. However, the quotas allocated to the United Kingdom, especially for area VII, were below the level of some of the recent catches, but I was able to obtain highly satisfactory increases in some cases.
Nephrops is particularly important to fishermen in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I know that there was some anxiety that our proposed quotas would not be sufficient. However, the quotas finally agreed are well above our recent catches and will, I hope, reassure those fishermen and processors concerned that their interests have been amply safeguarded. The quotas for pollock and Norway lobster were on an ad hoc basis for 1986 without prejudice to the allocation of the stocks in future years.
In addition to the package of TACs and quotas for Community fishermen in the waters of the member states, the Council had also to consider the reciprocal fishing arrangements for 1986 with third countries. The most important are the arrangements with Norway, which the Select Committee has recommended for the consideration of the House.
I have already dealt with the joint stocks in the North sea where the arrangements agreed reflect substantial transfers from Norway, but I must draw attention to the increased quotas for north-east Arctic cod and haddock, which should provide some alternative opportunities, especially for our larger vessels.
In addition, there are useful reductions in the allocations to Norway in Community waters of west of Scotland herring, down 900 tonnes, and of western mackerel, down 5,000 tonnes. These help to maintain the opportunities for our own fishermen, despite reductions in the TACs.
The main point of interest in the reciprocal arrangements negotiated with Norway is clearly the share-out of the North sea herring stock for 1986. I know that this has caused concern to our industry, and it is indeed difficult to resist the conclusion that the Commission, in its understandable eagerness to reach an early agreement with Norway, allowed itself to be pushed too far by Norway, despite the advice of the member states' representatives who were on the spot. I made it very clear at the Council on 16 and 17 December that we were not


happy with how the Commission had conducted these negotiations, and we will continue to press for a more satisfactory negotiating procedure.
The House will wish to consider the agreement in its full context. Last year, no agreement was reached with Norway on North sea herring. As a result, each party managed its fishery in its own zone. The Community restricted its catches to 80 per cent. of a notional TAC of 410,000 tonnes for the North sea as a whole to protect the upturn in the herring stocks and to avoid prejudicing further negotiations. Norway, however, caught in its own zone in excess of 150,000 tonnes—well beyond what the Community could have agreed was appropriate.
There was clearly a danger that continued failure to agree on joint management of the stock would have led to competitive over-fishing by each party, to the detriment of the stock. That was one of the reasons why the Commission felt able to agree to an allocation of 200,000 tonnes to Norway for 1986 out of a TAC of 570,000 tonnes for the North sea as a whole, to be fished in the northern and central sectors of the North sea only, with 50,000 tonnes available to be taken in the Community's zone. That agreement is on a strictly ad hoc basis for 1986, and discussions are to continue on the basis for a longer term agreement on ownership shares.
The second main reason that the Commission was able to advance in support of its agreement with Norway was that the allocation to Norway of North sea herring explicitly represents a transfer from the Community to Norway to help redress the overall balance of the other arrangements for 1986, to which I have already referred. In order not to prejudice each party's position on the respective ownership shares of North sea herring, it was not possible to put a precise figure on the level of this transfer. However, our own calculation of the balance of the remainder of the agreement for 1986, taking into account elements of compensation carried forward from 1985, indicates that it favours the Community by the equivalent of about 35,000 tonnes of herring. That factor has to be kept in mind when considering the scale of the herring allocation to Norway. Likewise, although our pelagic fleet is concerned about the 50,000 tonnes of herring available for Norway to fish in the Community's zone, we must remember that in the case of all the other joint stocks, joint management implies an element of mutual access to each other's waters.
To sum up, we have to bear in mind that reopening the negotiations with Norway on herring would have led to delay in the fixing of TACs and quotas generally. Any reduction in the herring allocation to Norway would have had to be balanced by equivalent reductions in the transfers from Norway to the Community on whitefish stocks, for many of which the United Kingdom share is much higher than that for North sea herring. Our overall judgment was, and is, that the package of TACs, quotas and reciprocal fishing arrangements for 1986 is very satisfactory indeed from the United Kingdom point of view, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
I should now like to remind the House of a further element in the package—or, rather, not in the package. The House will recall that last year we agreed to a temporary derogation for one season from the 10 per cent. by-catch limit on human consumption whitefish taken in the Danish industrial fishery for Norway pout in the North sea. Despite the limited and temporary nature of that derogation, considerable concern was expressed about it

both by the British fishing industry and by hon. Members on a number of occasions. When the derogation expired on 31 May 1985, the Commission reviewed the data available on the quantities of whitefish taken under the derogation, which were admittedly small, and proposed an extension of the derogation for a further season.
We took the view that a temporary derogation was a temporary derogation and that no case had been made out for continuing to depart from the 10 per cent. by-catch limit laid down for the industrial fisheries as part of the basic 1983 common fisheries policy settlement. I am glad to say that, as a result of our firmness on this matter and the support we received from other member states, notably France, the Commission agreed as part of the package on 17 December to withdraw its proposal on Norway pout. It is common enough for a Commission proposal to be amended, but, as I think those who are experts in these matters will be aware, it is rare indeed for one to be withdrawn altogether. As a result of our successful campaign on this issue, with the support of the industry and the House, I am confident that the Norway pout can now return to the deserved obscurity from which it emerged last year.
I will now deal briefly with the other documents mentioned in the motion. In each case the Select Committee recommended that adoption of these proposals need not be delayed pending a debate, and I accordingly entered no reservation on these when they came to the Council for adoption, in two cases in a revised form.
Document No. 8662/85 covers the allocation of the flat rate quantities of hake, horse mackerel and blue whiting to Spain provided for in the treaty of accession. As the House will recall, the magnitude of Spain's hake quota in the waters of the then existing member states was a critical element in the long and difficult accession negotiations. In the end, Spain was granted for a three-year period up to 4,500 tonnes of hake in addition to the quota, to the extent necessary to give Spain a total allocation of 18,000 tonnes. The document divides that 4,500 tonnes into 3,000 tonnes for areas VI and VII, and 1,500 tonnes for the Bay of Biscay, broadly in proportion to the division of the TACs.
For horse mackerel and blue whiting, Spain receives flat rate quantities, outside the unallocated TACs of 31,000 tonnes of horse mackerel and 30,000 tonnes of blue whiting. In each case, the proposal allocates 10,000 tonnes to the waters of interest to the United Kingdom—areas VI and VII. That is somewhat less than we might have expected given the pattern of existing fisheries. I hope that the House will agree that the proposal which was adopted as it stands represents a sensible and practical application of the provisions of the accession treaty.
Document 9284/85 deals with a number of detailed amendments to the Community's control arrangements, designed particularly to tighten up control on TACs and quotas. The House will know the importance we attach to control. We were instrumental in establishing the Community's Inspectorate of Inspectorates and I am glad to report that, as a result of the Commission's inspectors' work over the last year or so, a great deal of progress has been made in ensuring that all member states take positive steps to respect their national quotas.
However, the Commission has identified several areas where further powers are needed, and a number of these were provided for in the revised regulation agreed by the


Council on 17 December. In particular, the Commission will be able to require additional catch information from member states.
Member states are also required to provide the Commission with a written report of any formal administrative inquiry instigated at the latter's request, so that the Commission can be satisfied that everything possible has been done to eliminate flaws in the control system.
In the member states themselves, it will now be possible to apply sanctions for all control offences to the owners or charterers of vessels as well as to skippers. There will be a formal obligation on the member states to ensure that the accuracy of logbooks is checked.
New controls have also been introduced for exercising tighter control over klondikers. These are already subject to tight control when receiving from United Kingdom fishing vessels in our waters. It will now be possible to ensure that the catches from other member states' vessels are also closely monitored.
I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that two of the proposals in document 9284/85 were withdrawn before the draft regulation was put to the Council. The first would have permitted the Commission to close a fishery when the Community's total allowable catch or quota had been exhausted, even though some member states might not have exhausted their individual quotas. The second would have empowered Commission inspectors to carry out investigations unaccompanied by national inspectors.
Both the proposals affect the relative competences of the Commission and of the member states and caused difficulty for nearly all member states. It was therefore not possible to reach agreement. The Commission has, however, at our request, promised the Council a report early this year on the state of control arrangements throughout the Community, and that report, when it appears, may provide a basis for reconsideration of these and any other desirable changes.
I turn to the Commission's proposals for guide prices in 1986, contained in document 10047/85. Guide prices are used to calculate the Community withdrawal prices for fish withdrawn from the human consumption market. It is of considerable importance to reach agreement on the guide prices sufficiently early in December to allow all the other prices derived from them to be applied from the start of the new fishing year, on 1 January.
As in previous years, the Commission's proposals are in three parts. The first of these is of great concern to the United Kingdom, as it covers the main species which are of interest to our fishermen. The proposed range of increases between nil and 6 per cent. seemed to us on the whole, to have been drawn up on a very sound basis. In the course of negotiation the balance was changed marginally, the increase for cod being set at 6 per cent. instead of the 5 per cent. originally proposed. That increase was, however, offset by a reduction of one percentage point to 5 per cent. and 4 per cent., respectively, in the Commission's proposals for haddock and whiting. Of slightly greater significance, however, was the three percentage point price reduction for herring, the price of which was to have been left unchanged. This reduction, for which we pressed, should help Community herring to sell in competition with supplies from third countries where prices are generally lower. Overall,

therefore, I consider that the revised guide prices for 1986 provide the United Kingdom industry with a sound and realistic level of support.
I should like once again to sum up the overall message that emerges from these documents. In 1983 the Government negotiated a first-class deal for the United Kingdom on the common fisheries policy. Last year, we negotiated its extension to Spain and Portugal on a basis which fully preserves its advantages for the United Kingdom. Other countries have sought, on this point or that, to unpick or adjust the balance of the deal, but it is in fact secure for the rest of this century and beyond. There is clear evidence that the common fisheries policy is now working increasingly effectively. That is shown by the fact that TACs and quotas have again been agreed before the beginning of the year and that control arrangements are being tightened up.
During the relevant negotiations, the Government have shown how hard they are prepared to fight to defend the real interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry. This is demonstrated both by our success in securing the withdrawal of the Commission's proposal on Norway pout and by the list of valuable improvements that we secured in the final package of TACs and quotas and other arrangements for 1986. I have no hesitation in asking the House to approve these arrangements.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I shall keep my speech as short as possible because a number of hon. Members want to speak about these EEC documents.
There was general satisfaction in the industry that the Government were able for the second time to complete the negotiations on TACs and quotas before the beginning of the fishing year. Clearly the negotiations were made much more difficult this year because of the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EEC. Advice from the marine scientists that there would need to be a substantial reduction in certain key species, such as North sea cod and west coast mackeral, accentuated the difficulties.
The industry, especially in Scotland, seemed satisfied with the way in which the Government handled the Norway pout whitefish by-catch. That by-catch had been increased for a transitional period from 10 per cent. to 18 per cent. As a result, the authorities appeared to turn a blind eye to the other young fish caught as a by-catch when pout was being fished in this area. I understand that the Danes were the main culprits. This was unsatisfactory and totally contrary to the Community's policy on conservation. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is satisfied that this unacceptable behaviour will cease with the introduction of these new quotas. If control over this by-catch is regained, fish that is suitable for human consumption will not be used for industrial purposes and the depleted whitefish stocks in the North sea will be able to recover more quickly.
The reduction in the North sea cod quota is bad news for certain parts of the industry. Cod is the most valuable fish, especially for east coast fishermen who do not have access to haddock to compensate for the fall in the cod quota. Severe hardship for those fishermen is likely to ensue.
It is vital to base quotas on scientific advice, but the industry feels that a quota reduction of this magnitude will cause serious dislocation in the industry and believes that


a more gentle reduction could have been achieved, say, over two or three years. Was that option considered? Would it have been viable from a conservation point of view?
The industry has to accept the sharply reduced North sea cod quota—it has no option. Nevertheless, it is important in debates such as this to reflect the industry's attitudes. The view widely held by the industry is that the reduction in the North sea cod quota arises mainly from the failure of the Government and the EEC Commission to enforce their policy rather than from the industry's performance and behaviour. It is not good enough for the Government to say that the quota cuts are necessary just because of the scientific advice and informaton given to them. The failure of Government policy has resulted in these severe cuts in cod quotas.
The industry would like the House to know that it was not the industry that created the so-called "paper fish" and allowed poor enforcement which resulted in certain stocks being over-exploited. The industry feels that it is having to carry the can for the maloperation of the common fisheries policy.
The North sea cod quota has been reduced in 1986 from about 107,000 tonnes to about 75,000 tonnes—a reduction of about 30,000 tonnes. It can be argued that in reality the reduction is appreciably less because our fishermen did not exploit the whole quota. The reasons are that the cod stocks have been depleted, and cod are therefore more difficult to catch, and the very bad weather. The Minister knows all about that bad weather. The industry has been compensated to an extent in that cod prices have generally remained firm.
Just before Christmas, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a £16 million package for hill farmers to compensate them for bad weather. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend compensating the fishing industry in similar fashion for bad weather?
The part of the 1986 quotas that has received the most intense opposition from British fishermen is the huge increase in the herring quota for Norway. The Minister commented on that. The feeling is that, during the negotiations, the EEC seemed to run riot. It appeared to ignore British officials and opinion. This has brought into question whether the Commissioner responsible for fishing should have the power to make what seemed to have been a unilateral and irrational decision on this matter. The EEC system of crisis management must surely now come into question.
The Minister showed his concern about the way in which the decision was arrived at. It would be wrong of me not to accept his comments. Norway, which is a non-EEC country, has been allocated 40 per cent. of the total EEC herring catch. The industry feels that there is no reasonable basis for allowing that to happen. Perhaps the Minister will say why it was necessary for the Norwegian demands to be fully met. Was it not possible to arrive at a more reasonable compromise?
The consequence of that decision is that Norway will be entitled to catch 200,000 tonnes out of a total of 500,000 tonnes for 1986. Does the Minister agree that that will be the starting point for Norway when it comes to negotiating the herring quota for 1987 and that it is likely to produce great difficulties in next year's negotiations and for British fishermen in the meantime? Surely the Minister will agree that this precipitous action over the quotas is bound to create problems later.
In last year's debate the right hon. Gentleman reported to the House on the state of negotiations with Norway on herring stocks. He said:
It has not yet proved possible to reach agreement with Norway on the problem of the allocation of North sea herring stock. But, without sacrificing our existing firm position on that issue, it has been agreed that negotiations will continue in the course of 1985."—[Official Report, 10 January 1985; Vol. 70, c. 969.]
How does the Minister square that so-called firm position with the fact that he has allowed 40 per cent. of the total stock to be given to the Norwegians? Clearly the Minister has sacrificed the interests of the British fishing industry in these crucial negotiations and has allowed himself to be dictated to by the Commission in Brussels. The Minister's performance was just not good enough.
Quotas are central to the common fisheries policy which came into operation in January 1983. For the policy to remain intact it is vital that the agreed quotas are enforced. The policy relies on member states to direct enforcement resources in their own sectors and to ensure that their quotas, mesh sizes and other factors are adhered to. So far the enforcement policy has left a lot to be desired, although improvements are being made in some areas.
One key problem has been the lack of political will in some EEC countries to ensure that enforcement works. To be fair, the United Kingdom has led the way in improving enforcement within the community. Also, satisfactory strides have been made nationally on enforcement. However, many people in the industry feel bitter at the way that other EEC countries have not stuck to the rules whereas the United Kingdom has. That has been costly to our industry in fishing opportunities and jobs.
As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Spain and Portugal are now part of the common fisheries policy. Spain alone has a huge fleet of about 17,000 vessels. There is concern and doubt in the industry as to whether Spain will implement adequate control and enforcement regulations. There is still concern over the phasing out of the Nimrods and about whether the three smaller civilian planes, which are slower and less powerful, will 'De able to fulfil the same function as the Nimrods. Would it not have been better to review that change after experience with the Spanish and Portuguese fleets?
To date there has been a lot of abuse by the Spanish of the common fisheries policy. They have been using undersized nets and have been fishing in areas where they do not have quotas. The general impression in the industry is that the Spanish fleet is aggressive and undisciplined. Does the Minister believe that the EEC and the inspectorate are truly ready for this massive increase in the EEC fleet through the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community?
The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), made great play in Fishing News on 3 January and in other publications of the way in which he intends to restrict the number of Spanish vessels in British waters to 150 at any given time. I do not dispute that the Minister is keen and enthusiastic to ensure that the Spanish adhere to the rules now that they are part of the common fisheries policy. Essentially, the system that the Minister of State has proposed involves monitoring the number of Spanish vessels in British waters and sending the information to the EEC Commission. I am not sure what the Commission will do with the information. I understand that Ireland and France will also


participate in the scheme. That all seems laudable, but I do not think that the scheme goes nearly far enough for the whole common fisheries policy. There is considerable scepticism in the industry about the effectiveness of policing and enforcement in the various EEC countries.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a need for action in another commercial area? British fishermen who are desperate for jobs are often employed by Spanish firms, many fishing from Spain, and do not get paid. If they protest about their conditions and lack of pay, they are often left to pay their own fares home and are in a desperate plight. There is a need for commercial discipline of Spanish fishing firms.

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It all comes under the heading of flags of convenience and quota hopping. I do not want to develop it in my speech, but as a representative of Hull, which is a major fishing centre, as every hon. Member knows, I have had experience of fishermen who have been exploited by Spanish companies. They have been on vessels with inadequate safety equipment. Hatches have been sealed. The fishermen have not had food or medical equipment. Log books have not been kept up to date. Their accommodation has been infested by cockroaches. They have had to suffer appalling conditions. Unfortunately, the companies have been able to get away with it. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced new measures which were reported in a written answer on, I think, 9 December and which will address the problem. I appreciate what the Minister has done, but I do not think it goes far enough. I hope that eventually we will have primary legislation on the matter.
More effective enforcement policies are required. We need to build up the confidence of fishermen in the various EEC countries in the enforcement arrangements which, above all, must be seen to be fair. At the moment people in the industry tell me that the Commission fails miserably to provide any feedback on how well the enforcement scheme is working. The Minister should tell us whether he knows in detail how well enforcement arrangements are working in other EEC countries.
Also, will the Minister tell us whether he formally—I stress the word "formally"—receives information from the Commission about the abuse of the common fisheries policy by other EEC countries? If so, will he arrange for copies of that information to be placed in the House of Commons Library?

Mr. Jopling: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has been saying on enforcement. Is he aware that, within the first 10 days of Spain's accession to the Community, our fishery protection officers arrested a Spanish vessel, which has been fined £15,000? Will he join me in congratulating our officers on their prompt action so soon after Spanish accession?

Mr. Randall: Of course I congratulate the authorities on achieving that. The point I am making is that, first, there is little confidence in the industry in the working of the scheme. Secondly, the Minister must provide feedback to the industry on how the scheme is working. That does not exist and it is an important point. I hope that the Minister will take it up when he has meetings with the Commission.
Is the question of specific details of abuse by various EEC countries always on the agenda for ministerial meetings on fishing matters, and, if not, why not? Surely the matter is worth serious and regular consideration by Ministers. I understand that the new EEC inspectorate has been successful in flushing out a number of cases of abuse, and the one to which the Minister referred is a good example. Why is that sort of information not made more public?
Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient penalties have been applied to those countries that have constantly abused the policy? Has he considered reminding the Commission of the range of penalties that might be applied to offenders, such as the withdrawal of FEOGA grants or even quota reductions?
As the industry feels that there is not sufficient feedback of information from the Commission on how well the common fisheries policy is working, will the Minister raise that matter with the Commission to see what improvements can be made?
I believe that it is important for this House to discuss the issues in the Community papers before us. The time available for this debate has been too short—due, as we all know, to the Home Secretary's statement. However, there is a broader range of more worrying issues to do with the operation of the common fisheries policy that need to be considered by the House. Accordingly, I hope that it will not be too long before we have a half-day debate on the general state of the fishing industry in this country.

Sir Walter Clegg: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I believe that it is the first time that he has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench, and I welcome him to his new position. There have been all sorts, shapes and sizes of Opposition spokesmen——

Mr. John Home Robertson: And Ministers.

Sir Walter Clegg: Indeed. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West enjoys his new position.
This is a useful debate, although it is highly technical. Reading through the papers has been like threading through a minefield. There is certainly a great deal of gobbledegook per square inch. Perhaps for future debates we could consider producing a summary of the papers, which would be of great help in saving the time of hon. Members.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that enforcement is to be improved. Many hon. Members have always maintained that enforcement is the key to a successful policy. Indeed, I am almost sorry about the arrangement that a Community inspector should not inspect a country without the participation of that country's inspectorate. Although there may be drawbacks on sovereignty, if an inspectorate could go where it wanted, when it wanted, that would have a salutary effect, especially if some of our fishing inspectors were allowed to inspect other countries.
I am pleased that klondiking is to be tackled to reduce the amount of fish being transferred in that way. I also think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about reports


from the Commission on the effectiveness of enforcement would be helpful. After all, we cannot judge the success of the operation without that.
My right hon. Friend dealt with the quotas for the coming year. I am primarily concerned with area VI, which has had an increase in sole quotas that should prove helpful. Often fishermen think that the technical advice given by scientists is over-optimistic. Although there may be a quota, the fish may not be available to be caught. Perhaps the system should include taking account of what the fishermen say about the size of stocks as well as what the scientists say.
Since the common fisheries policy began, and especially since the withdrawal of Iceland, the English fleet has suffered severely. The picture in Fleetwood, Hull and Grimsby is one of almost total despair for the old, long-distance Icelandic trawlers. We are having to rely more on inshore fishermen to provide the markets with fish.
Although this matter is not entirely within the control of my right hon. Friend, the fishing communities in England are at some disadvantage compared with those in Scotland, who have the Highlands and Islands Development Board to help them. Perhaps the time has come for some regional help for the English fishing communities that have been so badly hit by the Icelandic withdrawal. Indeed, for Fleetwood the past year has been simply a matter of hanging on. I greatly admire those who are still operating the inshore fleet. They have faced enormous difficulties with quotas, the weather, increased overheads and many other problems.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The Minister who is to reply to the debate represents a constituency in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area. Those of us who are close to that area feel strongly about some of the unfortunate positions that arise as a result of the board's activities. I have heard rumours that the board and the Sea Fish Industry Authority are now beginning to get their act together. Until now, the two organisations appear to have been following different fishing policies.

Sir Walter Clegg: I had not realised that the southern Scots were as badly off as the northern English. I look forward to what the Minister has to say when he replies to the debate.
The documentation refers to a reduction in the size of the Spanish fleet, which we all agree is essential, and to decommissioning proposals. Decommissioning grants have been available in this country, and many owners have been able to recoup some of their losses. What worries me is that those who have suffered most from the diminution of our fishing areas because of the withdrawal of Iceland are not the owners but the men who sail in the vessels. Quite frankly, their redundancy payments system is a shambles. I know that that is not a direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but as a sponsoring Minister he should be aware that there is considerable bitterness and concern about that matter.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman said that the redundancy payments scheme is a shambles. My brother, who worked for a trawler firm in Hull for about 18 years, received as redundancy pay the princely sum of £385.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is better than most get.

Sir Walter Clegg: I was about to say just what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said. That man was luckier than many of the others, partly due to the conditions of service of fishermen. I am concerned to hear that cases are still before tribunals and that appeals are in progress. Obviously we cannot comment on those. However, I believe that for the future of the fishing industry fishermen must know where they stand on redundancy. The sooner that is put right, the better.
Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West I hope that we shall have a further debate in the not-too-distant future on the general state of the fishing industry because the matters that we are discussing today are highly technical which, to a certain extent, limits the debate.
The common fisheries policy is working better than most people thought it would. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to press for enforcement. That is the key. The more enforcement we get, the better the fishermen will accept the situation. The closing of fisheries and the reduction of quotas inflicts great hardship on the fishermen because they cannot earn a living while the fishery is closed. There is an increasing desire to look at conservation, which was perhaps not the case 20 or 30 years ago. The importance of it is now realised. Therefore, enforcement in preserving the stocks is important.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) about the hard days that have come to the Fleetwood fleet and other ports such as Hull and Grimsby. I was used to seeing the Fleetwood trawlers coming into my home port of Stornoway on their way to and from the fishing ground. They brought a certain amount of trade to the town. The local traders regret the disappearance of the fleets.
The hon. Member for Wyre is right to seek assistance for his local inshore fishermen. However, the fact that the Highlands and Islands Development Board does not offer help to fishermen in parts of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) said, is due not to any animosity against the fishermen but to the fact that the board's remit is confined to a certain area of Scotland.
In a previous fisheries debate a Conservative Member accused me of having only tales of woe and prophecies of doom. I am willing and glad to concede that today the Minister has given us grounds for satisfaction. I am sure that the fishermen, who are inevitably interested in the industry, will welcome that.
The mechanisms for enforcing protection are extremely welcome. That has been a weak link in the chain Many of our own fishermen have kept to the rules, but those of other countries have not. Some fishermen used to say that the protection was only against honest men who would not break the rules anyway and that the others simply ignored it. The present mechanisms are a welcome improvement.
I particularly welcome the way in which the by-catch of 18 per cent. in the Norway pout fishery has been reversed. I agree that that is a considerable achievement. Once that was conceded it appeared that it would be difficult to reverse it. There was no reason at that time for extending the 10 per cent. We all know that in certain fisheries it is impossible to catch 100 per cent. of a species, but we must allow a by-catch. Fishermen were willing to allow 10 per cent., but what is the point of 18 per cent.? It might now be said that they could have 25 per cent. for the destruction of perfectly good fish for human


consumption. Therefore, I congratulate the Minister on the return to 10 per cent. and I hope that that will be set in concrete for the future.
One of the great disappointments that has created anger and incredulity in the fishing industry is the concession of 40 per cent. of the North sea herring allocated to Norway. All the evidence is that there is a historic performance, according to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, of a level of 7 per cent. Now they will get 50,000 out of 200,000 tonnes in the EEC waters, which is effectively in British waters.
I hope that that will also be bombed out like the Norway pout by-catch of 18 per cent. because the fishermen believe that the Commission arrived at the negotiation determined to meet the Norwegians at all costs. It seems to me that the Norwegians do better outside the Common Market than the United Kingdom is doing as a member. One wonders what was the quid pro quo that allowed a TAC of that level to the Norwegians.
The reduction in cod quota is also a disappointment and the increase in the haddock quota does not compensate for that. However, I agree that we must listen to the scientific evidence. There is no use carrying on if the stocks cannot take the strain. One ray of hope is that when those stocks are fished with some restraint the recovery can be amazingly prolific in a short time.
Another matter that should be dealt with without delay to avoid uncertainty is the pelagic fisheries. A fleet of trawlers was allowed into those fisheries in 1985. I am sorry that the Ministry did not take immediate action to withdraw the licences because the precious stock still depends on strict adherence to the rules. I hope that that will be borne in mind. I welcome the report that we have had today.

Mr. Barry Henderson: From what has been said so far, I think that the House will agree with the Minister's assessment that this year's settlement is satisfactory. It was encouraging to hear the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) agree with that in general. From my point of view, the most satisfactory aspect was the maintenance of the pout box and our not agreeing to the Commission's proposal to liberalise the human consumption by-catch. On behalf of the fishermen in the east of Scotland, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and his hon. Friends for their efforts. This is one of the most satisfactory features of the agreement in the Council of Ministers. I hope that this is the last time that this proposal comes from the Commission. I trust that it will not be resurrected.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend immediately recognised, as did the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food after the Fisheries Council, the widespread dissatisfaction with the European Community's deal with Norway. I am not against Norway. I like Norway and the Norwegians. Some of my best friends are in the Norwegian Government. I met the Hoyre Stortingruppe about 15 years ago, and many of them are now in the Norwegian Government. I do not want to see any bad blood between Norway and the Community, Norway and Britain and particularly Norway and Scotland. However, I think that we can enhance our

relations with Norway by making a more satisfactory arrangement than has been concluded this year. It has not been as bad as it might have been because herring has not yet recovered its proper place in the fish markets. It is still a weak market, and I hope that it will not be too long before it returns in strength.
I hope that two things can be achieved—a stronger herring market, and more satisfactory arrangements with Norway on herring. Perhaps to that end my right hon. Friend will encourage the Commission to undertake an education programme whereby officials might visit some of the fishing communities interested in the arrangement with Norway in particular to see whether, before next year, they can better understand our concerns.
There has been considerable disappointment at the sudden and substantial reduction in the cod TAC. It is hardly compensated for by the increase allowed for haddock. I say that for two reasons. The first is the price consideration. The price of cod is about 50 per cent. higher than the price of haddock, which is an important consideration for the fishermen. What is more, too many of the haddock being caught are of the smaller variety. There is not a market for that, and too much of the fish is going into intervention. Just as we have all agreed that it would be a bad thing to have more human consumption fish picked up at by-catches of the pout box, it would be unfortunate if too much small haddock fit for human consumption did not find a market.
A related matter, which is not part of this year's Council, is mesh sizes. There is much controversy about what should happen, particularly for commercial species, and about the direction in which to go. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to give further consideration to the compromise proposals that I understand have been submitted by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, on this and on small haddock. It should be one of the objectives of an effective marketing regime that one should seek to balance supply and demand. If, as is likely, there is a healthy fishing industry in the coming years, it will be enhanced by a more satisfactory balancing of these supply and demand considerations.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) about the complexity of the matters that we are considering. In future, will the Minister do himself greater justice by bringing more light and shade to the debate, so that we can applaud his achievements and see more clearly his failures, by not giving us quite such an extensive tour d'horizon as he did, breaking down into consideration of the problems of megrim and pollock, blue whiting, area VI and so on? I am always grateful for amplification from the Minister when the points at issue are difficult. However, in a debate such as this, most of the matters could be published in advance in the simplified form suggested by the hon. Member for Wyre. We could then concentrate on the issue with which the House wants to grapple.
I said that the Minister might not have done himself justice by his approach tonight. Therefore, I express my satisfaction with the outcome of the negotiations on the Norway pout box. That was clearly an aberration of a most unacceptable kind, raising the by-catch from 10 to 18 per cent. There was unanimity in the fishing industries and


across the House that this had to be brought to an end. This is something for which the Minister deserves great credit. I hope that we can take some comfort from what he has said about the unlikelihood of this matter ever being raised again in the same way.
Having dealt with light, I must turn now to the shade of the Minister's speech. The darkest corner of the negotiations on which he has reported are the arrangements with Norway on North sea herring. That is unacceptable and quite extraordinary. The idea that the Norwegians should receive 40 per cent. of central and northern North sea herring TACs is fantastically inequitable. It cannot be justified for this year, but even more disturbing is the policy that, because the final arrangements for herring have not been agreed, that might conceivably be used as a baseline for a permanent regime. I hope that the Minister will give us a categorical assurance that he intends to be trenchant and robust in rejecting any such notion.
I do not know how the 40 per cent. was arrived at, but it is worrying that the permanent regime may be based on historical considerations of Norway's catches in particular years. The Minister and the Government must not allow a historic base to be taken from a time when the Norwegians were substantially overfishing and there was a threat to stocks from that overfishing.
I move on from the inequity of the present position to the way in which it was arrived at. The Minister properly drew attention to his anxieties about how the Commission had initialled the agreement, despite the notifications that had been given by Britain and France about the unacceptability of what was proposed. We all share his concern, but it is important that we learn something more of how this can be avoided in the future.
Did the Commission act in defiance of the views of member states because of the deadline on the accession of the Iberian countries and the desirability of getting agreement on the whole package from the beginning of the year? If so the Government's approach, and that of the House, should be that these matters cannot properly be left so late in negotiations that the Commission has the freedom to sell the pass. I hope that the Minister will say something about the manner in which the Government intend to defend our interests in formulating a permanent arrangement.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) spoke about a matter that was not decided at the Council but is to be considered in March—minimum mesh size. It is of particular importance to the Scottish fleet that an increase should not be proposed and that the compromise should be set at the 85 mm mark. That is about the best that we can hope for, so I hope that the Government will deal with that matter with considerable force.
The pelagic fishing review is the background to some of the matters that we have been discussing today. There is considerable anxiety among Scottish fishermen, in particular that the increase in the number of freezer trawlers with licences will adversely affect the pelagic fleet. I do not know how the Minister proposes to reverse the embarrassment that has been caused. I hope that it is not too late. It has been suggested that those three licences should be withdrawn. Certainly, the present position is most unsatisfactory.
In November, we were told that the outcome of the pelagic review would be announced before the end of the year, but we are still waiting. Can the Minister give us the expected date of the completion of the review?

Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman know what is likely to happen to the crews of those three vessels if their licences are removed?

Mr. Maclennan: I can only reply by putting another question. What will happen to the crews of those vessels that have been unable to obtain precious stock licences and what will happen to the fishermen whose catches are substantially reduced because of the occurrence of overcatching? Incomes are dropping, which has led to redundancies in several inshore ports. It is not much good robbing Peter to pay Paul. If that is what the Minister has done by granting licences to the three freezer vessels, he was unwise. I believe that it was not done deliberately, but it is a mess which has a continuing consequence for the inshore fleet. It is not a mess that will go away. I hope that the Minister recognises that fact.
I wish to discuss the reduction in cod TACs and the compensatory increases—as the Minister put it—in haddock. If the reduction in cod were based on unassailable scientific evidence, it could not be resisted. However, the Minister cannot argue that the increases in haddock will offset that reduction. Further pressure could be placed upon those who already catch haddock, because of the possible adverse effect on haddock prices. That underlines the difficulties with which the industry has to contend.
I do not quarrel with the Minister's overall assessment of the package and the state of the industry this year. However, it is a fragile industry with great ups and downs and it is subject to considerable hazards. The most tragic example of that occurred off the coast of my constituency during the recess when the Bon Ami sank with all hands on board. That event raises the matter of safety measures in the Minch and in the north-west and the appropriateness of locating helicopter safety services in Stornoway in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I hope that the Government are already considering such measures.
The country owes a great deal to the fishing industry. The Government's stewardship to ensure adequate returns is important not only for the future of fishing and of consumers, but for those fragile communities where our fleet is largely based. This year, I believe that the Minister has presented a fair account of the conclusion of an agreement which, I am pleased to say, was reached early in the year, giving some certainty as to prospects for the year ahead.

Mr. Alexander Pollock: Following a period of conventional silence on this and related subjects, I am grateful for the chance of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the start of 1986. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the new Secretary of State for Scotland will take as much interest in fishing matters as did his predecessor. He will be warmly welcomed if he takes the opportunity to acquaint himself at first hand with the enormous contribution that Scotland makes to the industry, especially in the north-east.
While debating the European fishing agreement of 1986, we should remember the general state of the fishing


industry. The latest figures issued in November by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland showed that the Scottish fishing fleet made an operating profit of £27·7 million from a total income of £182·3 million, which is a considerable improvement on the three previous years.
Regarding the 1986 average, I commend the Government on reaching political agreement before the new year for the second year in succession. It suggests a deeper political commitment among the member states, which must be warmly welcomed. I trust that a similar momentum can be maintained in other matters as they fall due for review.
Perhaps the most impressive achievement to emerge from the Council has been the successful resistance to the Commission's proposal for an increase in the Norway pout by-catch derogation. The Minister made clear his satisfaction about that outcome.
The matter of enforcement has been raised by several hon. Members. I, too, was concerned when the news came last August of the Government's plans to introduce radical changes in the arrangements for fishery protection and surveillance. A major Nimrod base lies at Kinloss in my constituency. My fishing constituents are especially aware of that service's contribution to the effective policing of those who seek to evade the rules. Last September a photograph from a Nimrod cost a Basque trawler skipper a fine of about £35,000 for illegal fishing off the west coast of Scotland. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that careful consideration is being given by the Department to the effectiveness of any alternative arrangements.
As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) reminded us, 1985 was a tragic year for all those who exact their trade from the sea. The loss, just before Christmas, of the crew of the Banff-registered Bon Ami came two months after the disappearance of the Macduff fishing vessel, Ocean Harvest, when four men were lost. It must be our hope that 1986 will be kinder to our fishermen and their families, to whom we all owe such a large debt.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock). I have been associated with the fishing industry for many years. Fearsome hazards are placed upon those who follow that trade, and I am pleased to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. This is the first time that I have followed the hon. Gentleman in a fisheries debate, but I am sure that it will not be the last.
I offer a brief contribution to what I believe to be a too brief debate on an industry that is so important to Scotland, and especially to the more remote maritime communities. We have an interesting collection of documents, which I would call a mixed catch.
The fears of the fishing communities aroused by the accession of Spain to the European Community have been considerably diminished. The grant aid offered for the decommissioning of Spanish fishing vessels is a most sensible measure, because the Spanish fishing fleet must be severely reduced to a level where it poses no threat to the viability of the fishing stocks that those vessels will

harvest over the next decade or two. Extra capacity must be reduced before a new common fisheries policy is negotiated in the 1990s.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I echo my hon. Friend's remarks about the need to take Spanish vessels out of commission. It is good that they are receiving a far better decommissioning grant than our vessels did when our fleet was being run down. At the same time, it is wrong that the Spanish industry receives a 50 per cent. grant for new construction, whereas ours receives a 25 per cent. grant.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning what can only be described as an absurd anomaly. The decommissioning grant is about £400 per gross registered tonne. It is absurd that the Spanish should be awarded the type of new build grant that my hon. Friend mentioned.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) claims that he is not anti-Norwegian. I am sure that we all readily accept that. I should like to claim that I am not anti-Spanish when talking about Spanish fishing activities. I shall quote Mr. Boyd Gordon, who I believed was a former senior official in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, but somehow he is still around.
When answering a question put to him by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East in the Scottish Affairs Committee's investigation of the fisheries protection services, Mr. Boyd Gordon had this to say about the Spanish fishing fleet in Scottish waters:
At the moment, they can have 16 vessels at any time in Area VI—
that is the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea area
which comprises waters partly off Scotland and partly off England. Under the accession arrangements, I think that that number is going up to 25. But there will be strict control of the number of Spanish vessels, especially now. The problem with Spain is to make sure that no more than the 16 or 25 are in your waters at the one time. They are notorious law-breakers in that regard, and we regularly find unlicensed Spanish vessels fishing off the West Coast—not in any great numbers; but we certainly find Spanish vessels that should not be there.
Spanish fishing must be subjected to close surveillance. However, the fears about their activities are being reduced.
Agreement has been reached between the EEC and Norway. Like some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members, I find it disturbing that that concordat gives Norway an incredibly high percentage —some 40 per cent.—of the central northern North sea herring total allowable catch. Surely the Norwegians are not entitled to such a share of a stock which is still recovering. Is the Minister satisfied with the quality of the negotiators acting on behalf of British fishing interests? Is he satisfied about their understanding of the needs of the United Kingdom fishing industry? Members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation are deeply dissatisfied with the Community's role in this affair.
I join the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in expressing anxiety about the increase in the minimum mesh size from 80 mm to 90 mm. I understand that, unexpectedly, that has been extended to the west of Scotland. If true, it will take effect from 1 January 1987. The introduction of such a minimum size will have serious effects on the whiting fisheries harvested by small vessels from ports on the east and west coasts of


Scotland. The question should and will be asked whether the Minister will seek a derogation to 80 mm in respect of the whiting fishery.
The quality of the enforcement of the common fisheries policy is important, because the management of fishing —I can say this because I come from a fishing family—is too important a subject to be left to fishermen. As has been correctly said, the stewardship must rest with the Government. If the fishermen see that the enforcement system to which they and others are subject is reasonable and fair, they will play by the rules.
When I was on a fairly large fishing vessel five years ago fishing out of a United Kingdom port—I had better not tell the House which one—the skipper when he was fishing off Shetland ordered the crew to insert a small mesh net inside the belly of the trawl net. I asked him why he did that, because not even the Norway pout could get through such a tiny mesh—I could not get my little finger through—and he said, "I will obey the rules when others obey them and when they are fair and square." The improvements in enforcement are to be welcomed.
The consequence of the regulation which allows penal or administrative action to be taken against owners and charterers as well as skippers over irregularities under the regulations may help to reduce some of the dreadful exploitation to which British fishermen have been subjected by Spanish fishing interests. That will go a long way towards dissuading skippers from fishing where they should not fish. Similarly, the need for member states to verify log book entries is a most welcome development.
We have a mixed bag of documents. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, they contain shade and light, but nevertheless there are some positive aspects to them. In general, I welcome the documents.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I shall concentrate on the subject which is uppermost in the minds of the fishermen of south-west England—the Spanish question. My area is closer to Spain than any other part of the United Kingdom. The Fishing News of 3 January carried the headline:
We are ready for the Spanish.
I wish that were true.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister of State. They have done splendid work in this matter. I seek further reassurances, for the reason that my right hon. Friend gave when he mentioned the recent arrest of a Spanish trawler.
Our fishery protection boats can go almost 200 miles off Land's End and pick up Spanish trawlers carrying out illegal fishing almost at will. There is a huge problem there and nobody knows the extent of illegal fishing. I look to my hon. Friend with some confidence to intensify our enforcement efforts, because I am certain that the Spaniards will not enforce conservation measures on their own fishermen.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister has hauled in a big catch for us and I shall try to be brief. I want to concentrate on cod because Grimsby is a cod port. It is geared to cod: its vessels are appropriate for cod but not for much else. Anyway, there is not much else for the fishermen to catch. The haddock is further north in Scottish waters and it is expensive and difficult for us to

catch it. For the Grimsby fishermen, it is cod or nothing. This year the cod catch has been down substantially and it has been a tough struggle to land even the quota. We have had great difficulties, with vessels carrying on long into the winter and making much more frequent and later trips. Prices have improved, but they have not risen sufficiently to compensate for the drop in the catch.
Moreover, the cut in the North sea cod quota in these measures will be a bitter blow for Grimsby because, while it is a 30 per cent. cut in quota, it is a 17 per cent. cut on this year's catch. The industry is already hard hit and facing difficulties. It is not generating enough revenue for reinvestment in new vessels to replace our aging fleet. I accept that the cut is based on scientific advice, but could not something have been done to protect Grimsby? It may be a matter of squeezing more for Grimsby from elsewhere, particularly from the Scots who have done far better out of this than we have, and who always have the alternative of haddock, which Grimsby does not have to the same degree, or perhaps it is a matter of providing some compensation for the loss of the CAT class vessels, which have now been laid up. They made a vital contribution to the fish throughput for the port but were not part of our sectoral quota. To maintain the quantity of fish coming in, Grimsby needs some compensation for the loss of those vessels.
If there is to be a cut in the cod quota, it is imperative that the Minister should press for special measures of conservation, because such measures are necessary for the cod stocks. In particular, he should press for an increase in the mesh sizes so that we can provide for proper conservation. I know that mesh sizes are to be increased from January next year, but that is a long time away and there is a welter of derogations and exceptions for that. We shall face difficulties even then, because there will be extra costs for re-equipping and there is a need for compensation for fishermen for the fall in catches. We need those conservation measures and we also need seasonal restrictions on fishing in spawning areas. In some cases there should be an absolute ban on fishing in spawning areas. We must rebuild the cod stocks if Grimsby is to have a viable future.
There is another essential matter. It is right and fair that there should be compensation for Grimsby fishermen for the loss of earnings, which will now hit them because the cod quota is down so substantially. It is, after all, a cod quota cut as a consequence of Government decisions and Government agreement. It is not the fault of the fishermen, but it will affect their earnings severely. It is a peculiar regional problem for the English ports, and particularly for the premier English fishing ports such as Grimsby.
Fishing has always been a poor relation, yet the treaty of Rome said it should be treated in the same way as agriculture. It never has been. Last year the Minister gave £16·9 million in compensation to specific geographical areas such as Durham, north Yorkshire and Northumberland to help hill farmers who had had to contend with bad weather and poor harvests. The same principle should apply to the fishermen in the English ports, particularly in Grimsby which has been affected and will continue to be affected by the disastrous drop in the cod catches. It is confined to a specific geographical area and will have severe consequences for the profitability of the industry. Fishing should qualify for special help, as did hill farmers, and on the same scale, or the fishing industry will be in difficulties.
I should like to comment briefly on a couple of other aspects of importance to Grimsby. The first concerns guide prices, about which the Minister said little. The increase in guide prices is pathetic. They are being edged up by a low figure in each review, in this case by 6 per cent. Such guide prices have no relevance to the costs of catching fish and to the costs of keeping the industry going. The whole guide price system was based on the French market, not on the English market. In other words, red fish and dace do not sell for much in this country but are priced quite highly in France because they are prized there. Cod is important in this country, but brings a far lower price in France because it is not so important there. The system is geared to French needs and not to ours.
Grimsby used to have its autonomous withdrawal system, with prices two to three times higher than the official withdrawal prices, but the withdrawal system collapsed three years ago and now there is no base to the market, except for the withdrawal prices based on the guide prices. If we are to raise the roof, we need to raise the floor as well. The guide prices should be increased to provide a firm base for a viable market and they need to relate to the costs of catching fish.
In the matter of control, the CFP system of policing has never been satisfactory. Thirteen inspectors is a pathetic and inadequate figure. Answers to parliamentary questions that I put down soon after the inspectors started to operate showed that the 13 spent most of their time in this country policing the most law-abiding part of the system rather than policing our continental competitors who are less strict in their observance of the rules. If the CFP is to be accepted, it has to be fair and impress equal consequences on all. In this country there is a feeling that everybody else is getting away with cheating, with inadequate supervision, with catches that are beyond the limits, because they are not adequately controlled by this police force. There is traditionally close collusion between the fisheries inspectorate and the local fishing industry in continental ports which certainly does not exist in English ports. I do not know about Scottish ports.
Three or four years ago my wife made a film about illegal Dutch fishing at a time when there was a ban on herring. In the Dutch ports they were landing herring. She immediately went to the local fishery inspector and said, "We should like to film you dealing with this problem of herring." First, he said it was mackerel and that it was nothing to do with him. Then he flatly refused to attend to the matter because he said that he would end up in the dock. That is the sort of warm relationship that exists there. The inspectors are the people who are policing the system, but European inspectors cannot operate if national controls are not effective and adequate.
What is proposed is totally inadequate. The catching fleet has been more than doubled with the accession of Spain and Portugal, but we have not doubled the number of inspectors for the control of a nation which traditionally cheats and does not observe regulations. The system must be enforceable.
My main point is a simple straightforward one about the needs of the Grimsby fishing industry. The Government's policy has been one of letting market forces prevail, and market forces have been running down an industry which vitally needs investment if it is to survive. Grimsby has a good future because, with proper conservation, the stocks

will build up and we shall have a prosperous future. We have to survive to be able to inherit and to catch that future, and we need special help from the Government. We do not want the Minister to stand by and say, "We can do nothing; it is all down to market forces." Unless we get special help, we shall not survive to catch that adequate future.
It is vital that the industry be concentrated in centres of excellence like Grimsby, which has the facilities, the landing and the ice and food processing, all of which forms an excellent nucleus for the expansion of the fishing industry, but it needs help if it is to survive. There is no point in the Government standing by and saying, "There is nothing we can do."

7 pm

Mr. John Home Robertson: This has been a useful debate on an extremely important industry. We are grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the details that he gave when he introduced these documents. Fishing is an important industry throughout the United Kingdom. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that we ought to have a further opportunity in the near future to discuss the affairs of the fishing industry.
I should like to refer to a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and by the hon. Members for Moray (Mr. Pollock) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) concerning the tragic loss of life in the Scottish fishing fleet in recent months. This is a matter of great concern throughout the country, particularly in the fishing communities. I have fishing communities in my constituency, so I am aware of this great concern. The House is to have an opportunity to debate fishing fleet safety when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) introduces his private Member's Bill next month. I welcome his initiative, and I have no doubt that he will receive widespread support.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. McKay), to say something tonight about the apparent serious lack of helicopter cover to deal with emergencies off the northwest coast of Scotland. This is a matter of immediate concern, and it would be useful if the Under-Secretary of State could say something about it.
Other aspects have been mentioned in the debate. I share the satisfaction of all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken about the ending of the outrageous derogation from the by-catch limit in the Danish industrial fishery in the North sea. I pay tribute to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for its efforts to demonstrate the harmful effects of that derogation on whitefish stocks in the North sea. That point was referred to by, among others, the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). It caused concern during the time that the derogation took effect. The 10 per cent. limit should never have been increased to 18 per cent., and I sincerely hope that we shall hear no more about it. I congratulate the Minister on having ensured its demise this year.
I wish to refer to two detailed points on the new restrictions that are to come into effect. Everybody recognises the need to conserve stocks on the basis of scientific evidence. However, it is important that restrictions should be phased gradually, wherever possible, in order to protect not only those who fish for


these species of fish but those on shore who trade in and process the fish. We remember the almost complete destruction not only of the offshore herring catching fleet but of the onshore herring processing industry in this country when there was a complete ban on herring fishing around our coasts.
The first detailed point that I want to raise on these documents is the increase in mesh size from 80 mm to 90 mm for the demersal fishery in the North sea and off the west coast of Scotland. That point was referred to by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). It could create serious difficulties for a number of small fishing vessels which rely upon the whiting fishery in those waters. Is it really necessary to impose these restrictions? In future, would it be possible for further restrictions to be phased and for fair warning to be given of them? The Minister must recognise the difficulties that restrictions create for a number of small fishing vessels and their crews.
My second detailed point, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), is the substantial cut of 31,000 tonnes in the British share of the total allowable catch for cod in the North sea. That is a substantial volume of fish. It will create difficulties not only for fishermen but for onshore processors and traders. In future will the Government try to avoid such drastic fluctuations in the total allowable catch and similar restrictions?
One of the key points in the debate concerns the Norwegian share of the herring total allowable catch in the North sea. We have heard about the Minister's dissatisfaction over the Norwegians having got away with 40 per cent. of that valuable fishery. The Government seem to have been completely outmanoeuvred. The conduct of the European Commission in general and of M. Simonet in particular in negotiating that deal raises serious questions. Representations have been made by a number of people. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has said:
We were very angry indeed at the unbelievably high percentage share (40 per cent.) of the Central and Northern North Sea Herring TAC allocated to Norway as part of the EEC/ Norway Fisheries Agreement for 1986 negotiated by the Commission and ratified by the Fish Council in December last, inasmuch as we do not believe the Norwegians to be entitled to such a high share of this recovering stock and, moreover, we fear very much for the precedent which this One-Year Deal may have set in the context of the need for both Norway and the Community to settle a substantive agreement on the future share-out of North Sea Herring.
The federation goes on to express its lack of confidence in the Commission's negotiations with Norway. I understand that the Minister is not satisfied with them. The federation suggests that in future there should be an independent element in the negotiations. I understand that representatives of the Scottish Fishermens Federation were present during the negotiations, and its observation was:
The Commission seemed hell-bent on achieving a deal with Norway at all costs and, in so doing, behaved in a cavalier fashion in proceeding to a settlement after paying little or no regard to the positions put to them by the Officials of the various Member States.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has an axe to grind, but I notice that its views seem to be confirmed by a more independent source, Agro-Europe, in its fish report of December 1985, which referred to
thinly veiled accusations that Simonet might just be paying more attention to the needs of the whitefish fishing industry in his native France rather than to those of British herring

fishermen. It was even suggested by some industry representatives that Simonet was trying to keep the French sweet in the hope of avoiding too heavy demands from Paris on matters relating to the Spanish fleet after accession.
It has happened. It must not be allowed to happen again.
I join the hon. Members for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) and for Moray and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, in appealing for effective enforcement of the agreed restrictions throughout the European Community. We have heard a certain amount about the Inspectorate of Inspectorates. We have even heard about the Minister of State's computer. But there is a legitimate sense of outrage among British fishermen that the effective controls that are applied to them are not matched by controls over the fleets of other European Community nations. The Spanish got themselves a bad reputation, even before joining the European Community. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) pointed out that a Spanish vessel managed to get itself arrested only days after Spain's accession to the European Community. That does not seem to demonstrate good intentions on Spain's part.
I see from a banner headline in Fishing News of 3 January 1986 that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has said:
'We're ready for the Spanish'".
I am not sure that the Minister of State is a particularly convincing figure as a latter-day Drake trying to see off the Spanish armada, but we wash him and his officials well in dealing with this clear threat.
The industry and the House expect the Government to enforce the fishing restrictions upon vessels of all nations that come within our waters. Like the hon. Member for Wyre, I want not just private reporting through the Minister's famous computer. It would be useful if we could have a public account of the conduct of the respective fishing fleets in European waters—not only around Britain, but elsewhere—and of the enforcement measures which may have been taken.
I repeat the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, at the beginning of the debate, that more time should be made available at an early date to discuss this extremely important industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): We have had a most interesting and informative debate on the European Community documents recommended by the Select Committee for consideration by the House. As is usual in these debates, we have ranged widely over many other aspects of United Kingdom and Community fisheries policy. I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and to those who cut their speeches short to allow everyone who wished to speak the opportunity to say a few words. I fully recognise that the fishing industry is an important element in many of our constituencies.
As each year passes since the common fisheries policy was introduced in 1983, we see more and more clearly that the deal that we negotiated then has been good for this country and for our fishing industry. The CFF' has provided the stability which fishermen need in order to plan ahead. The developing arrangements for the conservation of stocks, the annual allocations of total


allowable catches and national quotas, and the improved procedures for control and enforcement have all helped to provide improved opportunities for the fishermen and to safeguard their long-term interests.
In 1985 the CFP was extended to cover the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community. I know that some of our fishermen were apprehensive about this enlargement of the Community, but, as my right hon. Friend noted at the start of today's debate, the arrangements have been agreed without too much trauma, and I do not think that there is any need for the industry to feel threatened by the changes that have taken place.
There has been a broad recognition in the House today of the fact that the arrangements that we negotiated for TACs and quotas in 1986 are very satisfactory for the United Kingdom industry. Some aspects of the overall package are not ideal, notably the provision for Norwegian catches of North sea herring, but the arrangements have generally been given a warm welcome by the industry itself.
In particular, mention has been made today of the successful resistance that we mounted to the Commission's proposal for a further derogation allowing an 18 per cent. by-catch of white fish in the industrial fishery for Norway pout. This was regarded by the fishing industry as being the major issue of 1985, and it is very gratifying for Fishery Ministers to come to the House and report that we have achieved what the industry wanted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted the thanks and appreciation of all hon. Members who spoke, in particular the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) who said that it was very good for my right hon. Friend to be able to come to the Dispatch Box with real grounds for satisfaction.
I would just mention the performance of the industry in 1985. The value of the fish landed up to 31 October 1985 was £260 million, compared with £245 million for the corresponding period of 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) highlighted the position of the Scottish fleet, which plays such an important part in the economy of his constituency.
One of the problems which most Members have mentioned is that of North sea cod. I fully appreciate the problem, especially as it affects Grimsby, mentioned by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), and by other hon. Members. The scientific advice on the need for the reduction of the TAC was very firm indeed. The figure recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was, in fact, 130,000 tonnes, so that by settling for 170,000 tonnes we are already taking certain risks in order to mitigate the impact on fishermen. The new quota will not necessarily restrict fishermen's activities this year, because, if the scientists are right, the cod will unfortunately be that much less abundant.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby mentioned that the quota of 107,530 tonnes in 1985 was not caught. Although all the figures are not in, we consider that about 90,000 tonnes was caught. The main problem is a very poor 1984 year class. Of course, if surveys during the year produce evidence that the original assessment was substantially wrong the advice will no doubt be reviewed,

but it would be wrong of me to hold out any hope that we are likely to see any increase later in the year as a result of the scientists' advice.
Many Members mentioned the control of Spanish fishing. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is perhaps nearer the problem than any of the rest of us. I assure the House that every effort is being made to ensure the effective control of Spanish fishing in the waters round our coast, following Spain's accession to the Community. A majority of the Spanish fleet operates outside Community waters under agreements with third countries. The number of vessels allowed to fish at any one time in Community waters will be strictly limited. The House can be assured, by the catching and fining of a Spanish vessel so early this year, that we take the whole matter very seriously indeed.
With Spain inside the Community, Spanish vessels will be subject to the full range of existing Community conservation and control measures, including logbooks and landing declarations. We will most assuredly enforce these measures in our waters, and we can expect an improvement in enforcement at the Spanish end under the supervision of the Community's Inspectorate of Inspectorates.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—I did try to limit my speech to two minutes. May I ask whether he has had any indication at all of when the number of inspectors will be increased to 21, because this is crucial? I know that my right hon. Friend has been pressing very hard on this.

Mr. MacKay: I cannot give my hon. Friend a date for it, but the Council has endorsed the Commission's proposals for an increase in the complement of inspectors in 1986 from 13 to 21, and we hope that this will be done as soon as possible.
While I am speaking about control and enforcement, may I say that, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West freely recognised, we have led the way on enforcement in the Community and we think that a lot of progress has been made. Had I time, I would give the House the evidence on which I base that statement; for example, the catch limits closed down 46 fisheries in 1984 and 52 fisheries in 1985, not just in this country, but throughout the Community, which shows that member states are increasingly taking action to manage the fisheries so that quotas are not exhausted before the end of the year.
I was asked about the possibility of reporting this. The Commission will report on control arrangements early this year. My right hon. Friend, I think, referred to that. We have asked the Commission to study whether there should be some system of penalty on compensation when a member state exceeds a quota. We have listened with interest to these points and will see what we can do about publishing these various papers when they come to us.
A few quick words on quota hopping. From 1 January 1986, all licences contain new conditions aimed at ensuring that vessels wishing to fish against United Kingdom quotas have a real economic link with the United Kingdom. Licensed vessels need to be registered under part IV of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, normally operate from the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, be crewed by at least 75 per cent. British or European Community nationals, excluding Spanish,


Portuguese or Greek nationals, under the transitional arrangements, be resident in the United Kingdom and have all the crew contributing to United Kingdom national insurance or the equivalent Isle of Man or Channel Islands schemes. As a further deterrent, western hake was designated a pressure stock, which will restrict access to the fishery.
I have little time left in which to deal with the Norwegian point. My right hon. Friend explained that the agreement with Norway involved an explicit transfer from the Community to Norway of North sea herring for 1986 to balance the rest of the agreement. In addition, the agreement does not just concern North sea herring, but covers a wide range of important fish stocks and assures vital access to Norwegian grounds for our whitefish fleet. I am happy to give an assurance that the Government cannot accept that the decision to allocate 40 per cent. of the herring in the central and northern North sea to Norway in 1986 sets any kind of precedent for the longer-term share out. My right hon. Friend has continually made it clear that he was not at all pleased with the way in which the negotiations were conducted by the Commission. He has made that clear to the Commission. We very much hope that a repeat of the situation will not happen this year.
I have only sufficient time to mention one very serious point which it would be remiss of me not to mention. I was asked by three hon. Members about the safety of fishing vessels in the light of the tragic loss of the Bon Ami off the north-west coast of Scotland at the end of last year. At present my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has responsibility for safety, and his Department is conducting the shipping investigation. I cannot say more than that. However, I assure hon. Members that his Department and the Fisheries Departments view the incident with great seriousness.
Last year we finished on the successful note of scrapping the proposals for the Norway pout by-catch derogation, together with an agreement on tax and quotas for the main fish stocks in 1986. This year the industry will undoubtedly have to face certain difficulties and problems, including the unfortunate but necessary reduction in quota in North sea cod. There are opportunities for the industry to continue to prosper, and I am sure that it will seize them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That this House takes note of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memoranda dated 10th December 1985 on 1986 total allowable catches and quotas, on modifications to the proposed 1986 total allowable catches and quotas and on the fisheries agreement for 1986 between the European Community and Norway, of European Community Documents Nos. 9284/85 on amendments to Regulation 2057/82 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of Member States, 8662/85 on the allocation of flat rate quantities of hake, horse mackerel and blue whiting to Spain, and 10047/85 on 1986 fish guide prices; and welcomes and approves the provisional agreement reached on these arrangements for 1986 with the improvements obtained for the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Hong Kong (Nationality)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox Boyd.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The House will wish to know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. As it must end at 10 o'clock. I appeal for short speeches.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The White Paper which is before the House today sets out the Government's proposals for implementing the nationality provisions of the Hong Kong Act 1985. With the White Paper is the draft of an Order in Council which would enact the provisions and which, subject to what is said in the debate, we would hope to lay formally before the House before Easter.
The Government believe that the nationality provisions in the White Paper are fair and comprehensive. They are intended to establish clearly the future citizenship of British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong once Hong Kong ceases to be a dependent territory on 1 July 1997. We are introducing them in good time to prevent uncertainty, and to ensure that people in Hong Kong and third countries have an opportunity to get used to the new passport. Once the order is made there will be much detailed work still to do, but the foundation will have been laid, and we believe that it will provide a stable basis on which the people of Hong Kong can plan their future with confidence.
The nationality provisions arise directly from the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong and its associated exchange of memoranda on nationality. Hon. Members will recall that the House debated and approved the Government's intention to sign the agreement just over a year ago, after the people of Hong Kong had been given an opportunity to express their views, and the overwhelming majority had found it acceptable. Following that debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Peking to sign the agreement.
As a consequence, the Hong Kong Bill was passed and received Royal Assent in April last year. Paragraph 2 of the schedule to the Act allows for provision to be made by Order in Council for the ending on 1 July 1997 of British dependent territories citizenship for those having such citizenship through a connection with Hong Kong, arid for their acquisition of a new form of nationality, the holders of which will be known as British nationals (overseas). The paragraph also allows provision to be made for the avoidance of statelessness.
It is important for the House to remember the whole time that what we can do for nationality is confined by the Hong Kong Act. The framework has already been set by the Act, and the Order in Council must keep within that framework. Its role is not to reopen questions already considered and approved by the House, but to establish the detailed arrangements which will be necessary to give effect to the provisions set out in the agreement and the Act. Furthermore, neither that agreement nor the Act in any way alters the decision initially taken in 1961, and confirmed in subsequent legislation, that British nationals in Hong Kong are subject to United Kingdom immigration control. It is the Government's general policy to maintain the effectiveness of that control, and the case for making


concessions to any particular group of people, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, must be judged, not in isolation, but in the context of the Government's general policy and the pleas that many people throughout the world make to be allowed to come to settle in this country. That is the background to the Government's approach to the issues to be addressed by the House this evening.
During the debate on the Hong Kong Bill the Government undertook to put forward their detailed proposals for the nationality order in good time, and in a form which would allow them to be debated and, if necessary, amended, before the House was invited to give its approval. We have done that. The White Paper containing the order was published in the United Kingdom and in Hong Kong on 17 October. The 3·25 million British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong to whom these matters are of vital interest have had a full opportunity to comment on the order. Hon. Members now have a chance to express their views. The Government will listen carefully to all that is said tonight. We shall consider particularly whether we should amend any of the provisions in the order.
We have followed carefully the reaction in Hong Kong to the White Paper, the text of which had been agreed with the Hong Kong Government and Executive Council. It was debated in the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 4 December 1985, and some important points were raised. During that debate Members asked the British Government to do more to explain the arrangements for the new passport to third countries. They wanted to be assured that it would be internationally acceptable as a travel document, and that its holder would enjoy the same rights of access to other countries as those holding British dependent territory passports. They asked that the new passport should say that the holder did not need entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom. Members also supported the request by the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong and by some former service men to be granted British citizenship rather than British national (overseas) status or British overseas citizenship. A motion to that effect was passed, supported by the Hong Kong Government, and I shall respond to those points which are of the greatest importance in a few minutes. It might be for the convenience of the House if I first say a few words in explanation of the draft order.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that the order can, by definition, affect only those who are British dependent territories citizens by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong. Therefore, it cannot affect anyone who is not a British dependent territories citizen, or whose citizenship can be derived wholly from a connection with another dependent territory. But it is not sufficient simply to refer in the order to
a connection with Hong Kong
without defining what such a connection may be.
Article 2 of the draft order provides that definition. It sets out in a convenient, logical and clear format all the ways in which a person may have become connected with Hong Kong. It encompasses all the Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens listed in annex 2 to the White Paper—although, as the White Paper explains, virtually all such people in Hong Kong are citizens by birth, registration or naturalisation there. It is possible, however, that a citizen may be able to trace this connection through

a number of the circumstances set out in article 2 and in the more detailed annex 2. While the categories in article 2 are satisfactory for legislative purposes, the greater detail given in annex 2 is intended to help people find out whether they come within the order by matching their particular circumstances with those in the list. Therefore, article 2 defines connection with Hong Kong for the purpose of the order, and article 3 provides that anyone who is a British dependent territories citizen by virtue of such a connection shall cease to be such a citizen on 1 July 1997.
Article 4 sets out the way in which the new status of British national (overseas) may be acquired by those who will cease to be British dependent territories citizens in 1997. The terms of the United Kingdom memorandum associated with the joint declaration provide that this status will be acquired by such persons only if they hold or are included in a passport showing the new status issued before 1 July 1997 or before the end of 1997 in the case of persons born in the first six months of that year. Under the terms of the agreement, therefore, it will not be transmitted to descendants born after 30 June 1997.
All Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens will be entitled to acquire BN(O) status. Acquisition will be by registration. This is consistent with the long-standing provision in British nationality law for those exercising an entitlement to citizenship, but the terms of the memorandum, reflecting the particular needs of Hong Kong, link its acquisition to the holding of a BN(O) passport. The passport, together with the central register which will be maintained, will be evidence of the new status so article 4 provides a clear entitlement to hold a BN(O) passport.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am sorry to intervene while the Minister is going into such detail, but I rise perhaps more on a point of comfort than of order. Can something be done about the coldness of the Chamber? There are great gusts of cold air blowing in and it is excessively chilly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman feels uncomfortable, I shall make some inquiries about the problem.

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that that should be done in deference to our guests from Hong Kong, who may be finding it very uncomfortable. I hope that what I am saying does not create any cold winds.
The formalities going with registration will be kept to a minimum. This is very important. We envisage only that each person's particulars will be entered on a central register. It is important to repeat the point that no separate fee will be charged for registration.
I come next to the article dealing with statelessness. The joint declaration guarantees to all those BDTCs, except those who have left Hong Kong permanently and have the right of abode elsewhere, the right of abode in Hong Kong from 1 July 1997, and the Order in Council gives all Hong Kong BDTCs the right to register as BN(O)s. During the passage of the Hong Kong Bill a number of Members were concerned that those British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong who were not ethnically Chinese, and their children, might be left stateless in 1997 because they would not be regarded as Chinese nationals. The Government recognised that concern and gave a firm undertaking that no former Hong Kong British dependent


territories citizen, nor any child born after June 1997 to such a person, would remain stateless as a result of the agreement. In Committee on the Bill in another place, this undertaking was extended to cover the grandchildren of former Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens if they were born stateless.
Our proposals to deal with that undertaking are set out in article 6. It provides that any former Hong Kong British dependent territories citizen who for any reason has not acquired the BN(O) status to which he is entitled and would otherwise be stateless in 1997 will automatically become a British overseas citizen on 1 July of that year. Any of their children born after June 1997, if they would otherwise be stateless, will also acquire British overseas citizenship at birth, and any of their grandchildren, if born stateless, will be entitled to be registered as British overseas citizens.

Mr. Max Madden: The Minister may well be aware that the Library of the House of Commons has produced an addendum to the research note previously issued, No. 205, dated 3 December. The addendum is dated 15 January, the last paragraph of which says:
The possibility of statelessness could arise for people who do not have and cannot obtain any citizenship other than that of Hong Kong but are not Chinese and therefore not automatically claimed by the Chinese Government as nationals of China. This could apply to a minority of the roughly two per cent. of Hong Kong's population who are not Chinese.
Can the Minister confirm that that statement is correct, and if so, whether it is compatible with what he is now saying to the House?

Mr. Waddington: I think that the hon. Gentleman may not have been following what I was saying. I shall come back to this later. The whole point of article 6 is to make provision, otherwise there would be statelessness. Because of article 6, there will not be statelessness. If a non-Chinese ethnic person chooses for some reason not to apply for BN(O) status before 1 July 1997—he is, of course, entitled to apply for it—then, as distinct from ethnic Chinese inhabitants of Hong Kong, he will not automatically become a Chinese citizen. Therefore he could, if he had no other nationality, be stateless—hence article 6 in furtherance of the undertakings given to the House automatically gives such a person the status of British overseas citizen. I shall come back to this in more detail, because it is one of the most important matters under discussion.
Non-Chinese ethnic BDTCs will be entitled to BN(O) status, but if for any reason they do not become BN(O)s, they will have a recognised nationality status, and so will their descendants until well into the middle of the next century.
The Government recognise, of course, that nationality status alone is not sufficient. It is equally important that those now established in Hong Kong should continue to have right of abode there. Clearly, right of abode in Hong Kong after June 1997 cannot be secured by holding any form of British nationality, since Hong Kong will no longer be part of British territory. For this reason the agreement made separate provisions to safeguard rights of abode in Hong Kong. These are set out in section XIV of annex Ito the joint declaration. For the non-Chinese ethnic community, right of abode is guaranteed to all those who have been ordinarily resident for seven years in Hong Kong either before or after the establishment of the Hong

Kong special administrative region, and who have taken it as their place of permanent residence. The same guarantee extends to their children born in Hong Kong; and to anyone who had right of abode only in Hong Kong before 1 July 1997 even if he has not been there for seven years. In other words, the guarantee cover all the non-Chinese ethnic Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens except those who have left Hong Kong permanently and have the right of abode elsewhere.
The Indian community in particular, with support from the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong, argue that these provisions do not go far enough. They are concerned, firstly, that BN(O) status will not itself give them right of abode in Hong Kong; and secondly, about the nationality status of their descendants after the second generation born after 1997, and they have therefore asked to be granted British citizenship rather than BN(O) or BOC status.
I shall listen very carefully to all that is said in the debate, but I have to say that the Government are not persuaded that it would be right to grant British citizenship to those BDTCs who are not ethnically Chinese. They want to continue to live in Hong Kong. The joint declaration guarantees their right to do so. British citizenship cannot help them in this regard. British citizenship cannot, after 30 June 1997, give them the right of abode in a territory which will no longer be British. Furthermore, the grant of British citizenship would not benefit future generations any more than the present proposals. British citizenship can be transmitted to only one generation born abroad. The second generation has an entitlement to registration as British citizens similar to the proposed entitlement to BOC status. After that there is no automatic claim to entitlement or registration as a British citizen. There is, therefore, no advantage for future generations in avoiding statelessness or securing their future in Hong Kong by conferring British citizenship on the non-Chinese ethnic community in Hong Kong.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: rose——

Mr. Robert Adley: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Waddington: To be fair, I must give way to an Opposition Member first.

Mr. Sheerman: Surely the Minister has met members of the Indian community, to whom many of us have listened sympathetically. The Minister's remarks will not put their minds at rest. Can the Minister speak again in the debate and go further to try to put their minds at rest? That part of the community has special worries and a special place in Hong Kong, and in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Waddington: The House was anxious that we should follow tonight's procedure. The House was anxious that the Government should not just bring before the House a draft order and ask for its approval after a one-and-a-half hour debate after 10 o'clock. It would be silly to say that I was not here to listen. The whole purpose of the exercise is that I should listen to everything that hon. Members say. It would be equally silly if I did not spell out the difficulties. It would be unfair to give the impression that there are no difficulties. I shall listen carefully.

Mr. John Morris: Is the comparison with other nationalities fair? The claim by non-Chinese ethnics


is that they have no choice. They are there and have nowhere else to go. After two generations they will be stateless. Is that not their real fear?

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and others must face the fact that by granting any form of British nationality we cannot guarantee the right of abode in Hong Kong. The right of abode in Hong Kong is guaranteed to such people as a result of a joint agreement and cannot be guaranteed as a result of the conferment of British nationality. We have made provision in article 6 for the conferment of nationality on those who do not take out BN(O) citizenship before 1 July 1997. Article 6 also provides that that citizenship can be taken up by two further generations. That takes us well into the middle of the next century. One would expect that by then people still resident in Hong Kong will have taken out Chinese citizenship.

Mr. Adley: The assumption behind what my hon. Friend says is that the only alternative open to the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong is some form of British citizenship. Will my hon. Friend elaborate briefly on the discussions between the British Government and the Chinese Government in the liaison group about the possibility of people in that category obtaining Chinese citizenship under Chinese nationality laws? It would be unwise to assume that this is just a normal immigration debate.

Mr. Waddington: Article 7 of the Chinese nationality law provides that aliens or stateless persons who are willing to abide by China's constitution and laws may acquire Chinese nationality on approval of their application, provided that they are settled in China. One should not assume that those who are settled in China long after the takeover will not by then be Chinese citizens because of Chinese law.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: It is understood that the British Government cannot do anything about the long-term status of such people in Hong Kong. Surely they are seeking full British citizenship as a fallback if all else fails.

Mr. Waddington: The problem must be looked at in that context, not in the context of giving security to these people in Hong Kong. One must ask what might be the effect on others if the claim were conceded. We know from experience that many claims are made by people who have connections with Britain to allow them to come to Britain if certain circumstances develop. One cannot ignore the knock-on effect or that other claims could arise. Let us see how the argument develops during the debate. I do not want to speak for too long, but I want to cover the other points raised in our debate in December.

Mr. James Prior: I come new to the subject, but I am worried, because the debate in the Legislative Council on 4 December showed that the Chinese Members of the Council were taking a different attitude from that which they took earlier. That is what worries some of us. It should be given careful consideration.

Mr. Waddington: We shall give that matter careful consideration. The fact that the Chinese Members of the council are taking a different attitude should send warning

notes through our minds. My right hon. Friend is saying that before that debate in December some people gave the impression that they felt that more should be done for the BDTCs, not just for the Indian BDTCs in Hong Kong. I should be surprised if after a time other groups were not easily identified and wanted similar privileges. We shall be debating that in the near future.
I shall be dealing with service men. They are a good example of how one can keep on identifying groups with special claims. I am not now talking about groups in Hong Kong, but about others throughout the world whose status is less than that of full British citizens.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waddington: I must move on in fairness to other hon. Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has a good chance of being called to speak.
The Unofficial Members have also asked that some 400 or so former service men in Hong Kong should be granted British citizenship, or alternatively that the Government should consider sympathetically any application that they might make for registration as British citizens under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. The Government fully recognise the contribution that these service men made during the war, and indeed the contribution made by many other people in Hong Kong during those years, but it does not necessarily follow that we should mark this contribution by granting them British citizenship. Their sufferings were matched by many other people in Hong Kong, and indeed in other parts of the world. Like their neighbours, many of them were born in Hong Kong, as were their parents and grandparents, and all their personal and family connections are there.
Furthermore, the order must, as I have said, keep within the framework of the agreement and the Hong Kong Act. That framework would not allow us to grant British citizenship to all former service men in Hong Kong even if we thought it right to do so. Paragraph 2(3) of the schedule to the Act does not allow us to use the order to grant British citizenship to those BDTCs who have another nationality, and are not at risk of becoming stateless; nor, obviously, does the Act provide a power to grant citizenship to former service men who are not even BDTCs. We could therefore risk creating invidious distinctions between one former service than and another. I hope I have made it absolutely clear to the House that we could not deal with those former service men as one class under this order.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way to this further interruption. Many of the service men are ethnic Chinese and would, under the joint declaration, automatically acquire Chinese nationality. I am puzzled, because the comparison between this group and the group discussed earlier does not really stand up. The group discussed a moment ago are not automatically entitled to Chinese nationality. My hon. and learned Friend has read out some of the conditions on which their nationality application will be judged. There are other conditions which my hon. and learned Friend read out, all of which amount to it being left to the discretion of the People's Republic of China whether these people should have Chinese nationality. Surely the two groups are not comparable.

Mr. Waddington: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I was not trying to compare the two groups. I was going through the list of matters which were raised in the debate on 9 December and which are mentioned in the letter received by my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Legislative Council.
I am not making a comparison—different arguments apply. The argument for the first case is that they will not be left stateless. The order specifically provides that they will get nationality status. They will get the nationality of British overseas citizen. There is no argument that this would not give them the right of abode in Hong Kong, because, as I pointed out, no nationality is conferred as giving the right of abode in Hong Kong.
A different argument applies with ex-service men. One cannot deal with ex-service men as a class under the order, because the order only allows us to give people British citizenship if they come within the statelessness provisions of the Act.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is it possible for the Minister to consider their cases under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981, using the discretion given by that section at least to consider who might be eligible?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman must be clairvoyant. The Government will consider carefully any application for British citizenship under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 on grounds of service under the Government of Hong Kong, but I need to make it clear that this section cannot apply to those who were in service under the Government of the United Kingdom, which may have been the position for some of the Hong Kong ex-service men. There is no other provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 under which former Crown servants under the Government of the United Kingdom can be granted British citizenship if they do not meet the normal requirements for citizenship.
It is not possible to say in advance what the outcome of any application under section 4(5) would be. Those who would come within the terms of section 4(5) would be those who had served under an organ of a dependent territory. The Government are committed to using the power very sparingly and granting British citizenship only to those who have given outstanding service. It would be necessary to take these factors fully into account in fairness to other ex-service men throughout the world.
I believe that the provisions in the draft order, taken together with the guarantees given in the agreement, go as far as we possibly can in ensuring that all British dependent territories citizens resident in Hong Kong regardless of their background, ethnic origin or future citizenship status are ensured of a satisfactory and secure future there and that the provisions are fair for them all. I shall listen with interest and sympathy to the views of the House and will certainly wish to consider carefully any suggestions for overcoming the difficulties that I have outlined in meeting the requests made in the recent letter endorsed by the Legislative Council.
I should like to consider a matter which, while it does not come directly within the terms of the draft order, is nevertheless closely linked with it—the detailed arrangements which we propose to follow in issuing passports to British nationals (overseas) once the order comes into effect.
We intend to issue these passports from 1 July 1987. Those who then hold valid BDTC passports will be able,

if they wish, to retain them. From 1 July 1987 Hong Kong BDTCs will have a choice of applying for a BDTC passport with a restricted validity until 30 June 1997 or for a BN(O) passport valid for a full 10 years. It will not be possible to carry both a BN(O) and a BDTC passport. The fee will be set under the Consular Fees Act 1980 and, save for exchange variations, it will be the same throughout the world. The fee is for the passport, just as all of us have to pay for passports. As I made clear earlier, it is not a fee for citizenship.
Passports issued to BDTCs in Hong Kong are currently issued by the Governor in the name of Her Majesty. It would be inappropriate for passports issued to BN(O)s which will remain valid beyond 30 June 1997 to be issued by the Governor. BN(O) passports will therefore be issued from the start by "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State" as they are at present in the United Kingdom and at consular posts overseas.
One issue which has been of particular concern is the right of abode endorsement to be placed in BN(O) passports. This must be agreed with the Chinese Government, because the United Kingdom Government cannot give such a right in the special administrative region after June 1997. We have therefore discussed this matter with the Chinese Government in the Joint Liaison Group, and they have agreed in principle that the wording of the endorsement should be as follows:
The holder of this passport has Hong Kong Permanent identity card No.—which states that the holder has the right of abode in Hong Kong".
We expect to reach final agreement on this and other related matters at the next meeting of the Sino-British joint liaison group in March.
This endorsement will effectively guarantee that BN(O)s will be able to return to Hong Kong and there is therefore every reason to think that the BN(O) passport will be acceptable to third countries as the present BDTC passport. This at the present time enables holders to travel to about 70 countries in the world visa free.
I appreciate the concern felt in Hong Kong which has led Members of the Legislative Council to propose an endorsement in the passport to show that the holder does not require entry clearance in the United Kingdom. It is of course a fact that no visas are required for holders of BDTC passports to visit the United Kingdom, but entry clearance is a facility available to those coming to this country who wish to assure their entry before they set off and it would be wrong to say anything that might discourage the use of this facility.
There is another important point to be made. It is a fundamental part of our system of "on entry" control that people arriving here have to satisfy the immigration officer that they qualify for admission under the immigration rules. Obviously we must beware of putting any endorsement in the passport which might mislead and give an impression that in some way examination by an immigration officer and compliance with the ordinary immigration rules is not required. Bona fide visitors from Hong Kong are always welcome here and always will be, but there are difficulties about an endorsement in the passport and we have to ensure that people are not misled by it. I am, however, considering with sympathy how to meet the concern which Members of the Legislative Council have voiced on this matter.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister will be aware of the concern about the acceptability of the BN(O) passport in


other countries. He has just told us that for 70 countries BDTC passport holders require no visa. What steps have been taken, especially with our European colleagues, to ensure acceptance of this new passport?

Mr. Waddington: The new BN(O) passport will contain an endorsement making it clear that the person concerned is returnable to Hong Kong. There is no reason why the passport should not be treated by other countries in exactly the same way as the BDTC passport, because third countries are concerned with returnability. That is why it was so important to get that endorsement in the passport.
One of the reasons why we have introduced the draft order so early is that there should be adequate time for discussion and for preparation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the Foreign Office will now go to considerable lengths to explain to other countries the significance of the new BN(O) passport, so that when it arrives on the scene in 1987 they will know its significance and not have to have explained to them what I have explained to the House today. That is a reasonable way in which to proceed.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Have no other countries given any assurances that they will accept this form of passport? The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asked about European countries.

Mr. Waddington: Yes, they have. The United States and Australia have said that it will be acceptable, and the European parliament has passed a resolution saying that it should be acceptable. These are early days. My hon. and learned Friend would not expect the Foreign Office to have started this process before the House had debated the matter. There is plenty of evidence that the passport will be acceptable overseas.
We believe that the draft order provides for nationality arrangements that are fair and consistent as between BDTCs in Hong Kong, and that they are on the right lines. We shall listen with interest, however, to what the House says and consider whether any amendments are desirable or necessary before we bring the order back. It is right that we should act with care and deliberation, as the order will be a key step in the implementation of the agreement. The agreement itself was widely accepted by the people of Hong Kong and welcomed around the world as a significant achievement. With the help of the House and of the people of Hong Kong we look forward to the nationality order being seen in the same light.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Order in Council in draft. I regret that originally we were due to have only a three-hour debate, but even that was shortened by 20 minutes. The matter might not seem to be the source of that much concern in Britain, but it is vital to the people of Hong Kong who will be aware of what we say tonight and will analyse the Minister's pronouncements in detail. He knows that a great deal of attention will be paid to what he said.
I had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong for a few days last month. I returned with much more confidence in Hong Kong's future after 1997 than perhaps I had before I set

out. It is important that, whatever criticisms we make of the Order in Council and whatever emphasis we give to the anxieties of the people of Hong Kong that their needs are not being met fully by the Order in Council, we say nothing that damages the overall confidence of the people of Hong Kong in their future after 1997.
In a sense, we are considering means of amending the British Nationality Act 1981. The Minister knows that part of the Act dealt with the circumstances of British dependent territory citizens. During debates on the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House, the Minister's predecessor put much emphasis on Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. That was the nub of the case for BDTC status. Before the Bill was enacted, Gibraltar's position was changed and, after the Falklands war, the Government realised that the people of the Falkland Islands did not have the right of entry to Britain, so their circumstances were changed. That leaves Hong Kong. Now, the Nationality Act as it was intended to apply to Hong Kong is having to be changed because it is no longer appropriate. That is cause for concern.
Furthermore, the Government have had to change the concept of British overseas citizenship because, in the British Nationality Act 1981, that concept implied no hereditary status. The Government have now had to present a new concept of British overseas citizenship which has hereditary status for two generations. I mention that because it casts doubt on how the Government have approached nationality in the past few years.
The Government have a responsibility regarding the British national (overseas) passports, I am not sure that the Minister has addressed himself fully to the worries of the people in Hong Kong. He said that there would be an addition to the BN(O) passport mentioning the Chinese identity card. Even at the moment, however, Hong Kong holders of BDTC passports are having difficulties when they come to Britain as visitors or for other bona fide purposes. There are many bitter complaints in Hong Kong about how they are being treated. Indeed, that is why the Government in Hong Kong advise people before coming to Britain to get an entry certificate, although none is obligatory under the regulations.
Furthermore, some of the staff of the Hong Kong Government office in London have had difficulties and hassles at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. The Minister's assurance that BN(O) passports will be regarded as BDTC passports is something of a mixed blessing. The Minister owes it to the people of Hong Kong to ensure that BN(O) passports get a little more recognition than they are likely to get to judge from his comparison with BDTC passports.
The people of Hong Kong value highly the right to travel. The Minister said that he is hopeful that the no-visa arrangement which applies to holders of BDTC passports from Hong Kong will be extended to BN(O) passports. The Government could be a bit more positive and forthright. I urge the Minister to ask his Foreign Office colleagues to bring more pressure to bear on other Governments. It is not enough merely to say that it seems all right and that they hope that other Governments will take the passport.
The Minister will have seen the letter from Lydia Dunn, the senior Unofficial Member who, on this subject, says:
Measures should be introduced to allow unobstructed and untroubled entry into the United Kingdom by bona fide travellers from Hong Kong".


I understand the Minister's technical point. The method suggested in the letter might not be the most appropriate, but I wish that the Minister could be more forthright about Hong Kong people travelling to Britain and to third countries with BN(O) passports. After all, the BN(O) passport is being introduced later this year so that foreign Governments can get used to it. Unless the British Government give a bit more weight to their value, however, there is a danger that people in Hong Kong will exercise their choice of sticking with BDTC passports until the last minute in 1997. If we are to have more sense, the Government must be more forthright and committed.
The Minister will also be aware that there is in Hong Kong a considerable element of distrust in Britain, especially since the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981. I have referred to the hassles experienced by people from Hong Kong when seeking entry to Britain.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I also apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. The hon. Gentleman said that members of staff at the Hong Kong Government office in London had encountered difficulties at Heathrow and Gatwick. That is a serious and disturbing charge. I am not criticising him for making it, but perhaps he could substantiate it. No doubt the Government would wish to be helpful, as it would be inconceivable and awful if bona fide members of the staff of the Hong Kong Government had difficulties coming and going.

Mr. Dubs: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Many of the things that happen at Heathrow and Gatwick airports are inconceivable and awful. As for the Hong Kong Government office, I base what I say on a conversation with the London office of the Hong Kong Government when I was told that even its staff had had difficulties at airports. I am not saying that these people were turned away; rather that they were subjected to hassle. I believe that "hassle" is the most appropriate word. The Hong Kong Government office in London may wish to make representations about that, following the intervention by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). The main point is that the Minister has been made aware of what has happened and of the anxiety about that matter.
I should like to refer to the position of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong and to the Legislative Council debate which took place early in December 1985, and at which I was privileged to be present. I was able to hear the whole of that debate.
Approximately 10,000 people are members of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong and have BDTC status. That group of people comprises approximately 6,000 people of Indian origin, nearly 2,000 of Portuguese origin and about 2,000 of Eurasian origin. The Minister did not fully recognise their problem, although other hon. Members have recognised that the ethnic minorities will not automatically become Chinese citizens. The ethnic minorities believe that they will have a lesser status in Hong Kong after 1997 than the bulk of the population of Hong Kong. They are concerned about their future because they will not have equal status. That is the nub of their argument.
The Minister is getting close to playing with words when he argues that BOC status is a way of avoiding statelessness. When the House debated the Third Reading of the British Nationality Bill in June 1981, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) succinctly said:

British overseas citizenship is not a citizenship but a subterfuge".—[Official Report, 4 June 1981; Vol. 5. c. 1158.]
There is a danger that the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong will, after 1997, be given a very doubtful status that is tantamount to statelessness. That is the reason for their anxiety. As one of my hon. Friends said, they have no choice in the matter. The ethnic minorities were looking for comfort in the Order in Council and in the Minister's remarks, but I fear that they found none.
I should like to pay tribute to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants which ably conveyed to us the case on behalf of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong.
As far as I know, there are approximately 400 prisoners of war in Hong Kong. They are mainly of Portuguese origin and they are seeking to gain British citizenship under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
I should also like to mention the civil servants and others in administration who have occupied sensitive posts under the present Hong Kong administration. That group includes the police special branch. They expressed their anxiety to me that their career prospects may not be bright after 1997. I believe that there has been an understanding that some of these people will be considered under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Can the Minister say a little more about that?
The Minister did not refer to the 8,000 or 9,000 Vietnamese who are in open or closed camps in Hong Kong. Hopefully that problem will not exist in 1997.
Although their position is not directly affected by the Order in Council and today's debate, the fact is that, unless they are removed from Hong Kong by 1997, they will be in a very invidious position. I do not believe that this country has a responsibility to take every Vietnamese boat person, but we have a responsibility to take our share. If we do that, other countries will follow suit. We are not doing as much as we should and therefore the problem may continue almost until 1997.
I wonder whether the Minister has fully appreciated the many anxieties that have been expressed in the House and in what I have said. There are no precedents for the situation that will face Hong Kong in 1997. It is a matter not of giving Hong Kong independence but rather of handing Hong Kong over, on the basis of a Sino-British agreement, to another country. Therefore, the people of Hong Kong are entitled to sympathy and consideration from the House and the people of Britain.
I contend that the Minister has not shown that sympathy or understanding. The people of Hong Kong feel badly let down. As Lydia Dunn states in her letter:
There is a good deal of lingering cynicism in Hong Kong about the gradual erosion of the rights and privileges of British subjects outside the United Kingdom as a result of successive amendments in recent years to the laws governing nationality and immigration".
The people of Hong Kong feel let down and the Minister must do something about that. He has not said enough this evening to give the people of Hong Kong, who feel that they are being missed out by the Order in Council, confidence that he understands their anxieties In the absence of assurances from the Minister, the Opposition will have no alternative but to express their concern in the Division Lobby.

Sir Peter Blaker: There are four main questions in the debate, and I want to refer briefly to each of them. The first is whether the British national


(overseas) passport will be acceptable to other countries, bearing in mind the particular form of endorsement about the right of abode in Hong Kong. I do not believe that that will be a difficult question to solve. We have 18 months in which to solve it and we already know that the United States, Australia and various other countries find that form of passport acceptable. I am confident that in the 18 months available we will find that all the relevant countries will find that passport acceptable, as they did the British dependent territories citizen passport.
I recognise the importance of this subject to the people of Hong Kong, as it affects their ability to travel to different parts of the world and return to Hong Kong freely. I do not think that they should be too worried about the problem.
The second question is whether the new passport should be endorsed in a way that will enable visitors to this country, either for business or tourism, to be sure that there will not be the problem of delays at Heathrow or other ports of entry that sometimes occurs. I have felt for some time that the present situation is unsatisfactory. Visitors from Hong Kong find that they can go more freely to other countries—for example, the United States or Europe—than they can here. When they pass through immigration control at British airports, they are unduly delayed.
I hope that the Minister will pursue that matter. He has many clever officials in his Department and, as I believe he said, it is a matter of finding the right form of words that will avoid the sort of problems to which he referred. I believe that if he were to ask his clever civil servants to find the right form of words, they could do so.
The third question concerns the ex-service men. I have sent to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), a petition from three organisations in Hong Kong. He has not yet had time to reply to it, as I only sent it to him the other day. The three organisations are the Hong Kong and China branch of the Royal British Legion, the Second World War Veterans Association of Hong Kong and finally the Hong Kong Prisoners of War Association. Those organisations ask that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 in their favour and grant British citizenship to their members.
I believe that those three organisations have cast their net very wide. They seem to be including not only former Hong Kong prisoners of war but—I do not have all the details, but I shall get them—people who have served in the British forces, no matter where. That could include people who served in British regiments that were in Hong Kong in 1941. Such people are in a totally different situation from the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Force. The latter were volunteers—they were not conscripted and they served in Hong Kong. Those who were not killed became prisoners of war. My father was one, and that is why I speak with some feeling on that matter.
Members of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Force are in a special situation. I must correct the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I do not believe that they number 400. The number 400 applies to members of all three organisations to which I have referred. There are fewer than 100 former Hong Kong prisoners of war. That is a more manageable problem. I hope that my hon. and

learned Friend the Minister will consider the case of those former volunteers who served in Hong Kong and were prisoners during the whole war.
I am talking not about those who are British citizens—they have the right to come to Britain anyway—but about the Portuguese, Indians and Eurasians, many of whom are from families that have lived in Hong Kong for a long time, sometimes well back into the last century. There are fewer than 100 of those people, and their numbers will continue to dwindle during the next 11 years.
I do not think that there is any danger of a precedent being set if the Government consider the petition favourably. I do not think that will open the floodgates to many applications from, for example, Chinese who were in civilian prison camps. The Chinese were not in civilian prison camps. Those camps held only non-Chinese, because it was Japanese policy not to put the Chinese into the camps.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to distinguish between those who should and those who should not be entitled to certain concessions. He referred to fewer than 100 being manageable, although 400 seemed to be a large number. Is he aware that, in the past 19 years, over 1 million more people have emigrated from than have emigrated to Britain? The idea of playing a numbers game and delineating certain nationalities is objectionable to members of the Labour party.

Sir Peter Blaker: The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to say that we should admit for permanent residence in Britain all the BDTCs residing in Hong Kong—about 3 million—if they wish to come. That position is not supported by me or, I think, the majority of our fellow citizens. That would impose an impossible burden. One must indeed look at the numbers issue.
The fourth main question in the debate concerns the Indians and the Portuguese. They ask to have the right of abode in Britain. I congratulate them on the way in which they have presented their case. Their petition to the Legislative Council was a model of clarity which enabled one to follow this complicated matter with—I will not say, with ease—a great deal less pain than normally is the case. They have formidable support. They now have the support of the Legislative Council. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) pointed out, members of the Legislative Council formerly said that, if this concession were granted to the Indians and the Portuguese, many other people, including the Chinese, would want the same concession. They no longer say that.
I understand from a telephone call I received this morning that the Indians and the Portuguese have the support of the General Chamber of Commerce, the Chinese Manufacturers Association and the Federation of Hong Kong Industries.
I am referring, of course, not to the Indians and the Portuguese who have Indian and Portuguese passports, but to the BDTCs. In general, those communities have been remarkably successful in business. They account for a disproportionate amount of Hong Kong's trade and have made a success of their lives in Hong Kong. Some of them have been involved in less prosperous activities, such as clerical work or guard duties, but they are nevertheless solid citizens.
I understand the point which these BDTCs are making. After 1997, the United Kingdom, which will be


responsible ultimately for them as BN(O)s, will not be responsible for the place where they have the right of abode. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister rightly stressed that, under the agreement, they will have the right of abode in Hong Kong. I understand that they will be able to apply for Chinese nationality. I should like the Government to explore that point a little further with China, because it would be useful to obtain clarification on how China will apply the discretion, which it appears it has, according to its nationality law.
I should like to put this point in a friendly way to the Indians and Portuguese in Hong Kong who are making this plea, many of whom I know. Are they not tending to forget how good the agreement with China is? It is a remarkable agreement—better than any hon. Member would have believed possible. Looking again at it this week I am amazed at how fully it gives the Hong Kong people all the guarantees after 1997 for which they could ask. Perhaps some hon. Members have not recently looked at the agreement.
Paragraph 13 on page 22 gives the Chinese statement of policy, not the British Government's statement of policy. Every possible freedom is guaranteed in that paragraph. Page 20 states:
The Special Administrative Region shall maintain the educational system previously practised in Hong Kong.
Page 14 states:
The … capitalist system and life-style shall remain unchanged for 50 years.
It is a remarkable agreement. It is a solemn treaty, which will be deposited with the United Nations. It will be incorporated in Hong Kong's basic law.
As I understand it, the Indians and the Portuguese say that, whatever the agreement contains, it might not turn out as it says. They would like an extra option. It would be unusual, but advantageous, for the Indians and the Portuguese if that option were available. I must say that my view is more optimistic than theirs. I believe that China signed the agreement because it meant what it said. It took several years of negotiation to hammer out the agreement. It was not done lightly. Moreover, it is very much in China's interests to carry out the agreement, because Hong Kong is the source of a large part of China's foreign exchange earnings. Hong Kong is increasingly becoming the "open door" in China's open door policy with the Western world. It is becoming the channel through which technology reaches China. All this will continue. Hong Kong will not lose its value to China in 1997. It will become more valuable.

Dr. John Marek: Does the right hon. Gentleman foresee some anxiety by the Hong Kong people who are dependent upon the succession in government in the People's Republic of China? Deng Xiaoping will not be there for ever.

Sir Peter Blaker: That is obvious. I shall not dispute that. Of course he will not be there for ever. But regardless of who is in charge in China, underlying factors suggest that there is a good future for Hong Kong. I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will reflect on the points I have made.
The agreement is already being put into force. An excellent agreement has been reached on the release of land in the coming year. The Land Commission is already functioning. There is already a good agreement on Hong Kong's position with respect to the Asian Development

bank. Both sides are putting the agreement into effect. I believe that confidence during the next 11 years will grow steadily. As Deng Xiaoping has said, the success of Hong Kong is an example to Taiwan. Joining Taiwan with China is the main point in China's foreign policy.
We have only recently obtained this excellent agreement. It could not be easy for the British Parliament to take a decision now, more than 11 years before the transfer of sovereignty to China—the prospect which is worrying the ethnic communities in Hong Kong—based on the possibility that the agreement which we have only just signed will not work. From an outside observer's point of view that would seem a difficult act to perform. Let us remember another point. If the Indians and the Portuguese in 1997 or thereafter were to find the position in Hong Kong intolerable, many people of other races would say the same thing.
I welcome the Government's willingness to consider the points that hon. Members make in the debate. I am glad that we have had the debate in this form so that the Government may consider whether the draft order should be changed. I hope that they will take into the account the change in the attitude of the Legislative Council in the last few months when they are making up their mind. As far as I am concerned, I want to put it firmly on record that I believe that the events which are causing concern to the ethnic minorities will not take place.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am one of those who, in the excellent company of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), warmly welcomed the Sino-British agreement. It was an historic achievement. I believe that it is working out well, although there are a few colonial types—most of them chaps who want to scribble their nonsense in whatever media will present their concerns—who are trying to stir worries about developments up to 1997 and thereafter.
I entirely endorse the comments just now of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South. I am certain, as he is, that China has a total commitment to making the agreement work. I am sure she is totally committed to the stability and prosperity and the well-being of the people of Hong Kong. But there are reasons for concern in limited areas. If I may, I want to touch on two that are relevant to the draft order.
The first, which has been discussed and will be pursued in the debate, is the acceptability of the British national overseas passport when it is introduced in 1987. The British Government must be responsible for proving its practicality and its acceptability. Her Majesty's Government must pursue negotiations with countries throughout the world to ensure that the 70 or so visa abolition agreements that now apply to the present British dependent territories citizenship passport will apply to the British national (overseas) passport when it is introduced. The Minister should give strong reassurance on that point. If negotiations are not being pursued with the 70 or so countries, they should shortly be undertaken.
Consideration must be given, too, to providing, after the introduction of the BN(O) passport, an unhindered—I mean unhindered—passage to visit Britain for those who wish to do so without being harassed by immigration officials. I will not make any quips about Heathrow. It is disturbing that there are unhappy instances at that airport and other ports of entry time after time. Those of us who


have large immigrant communities in our constituencies could cite case after case. Hong Kongers who are British nationals should not have to suffer the suspicious caution that is natural to immigration bureaucrats. There must be an open sesame endorsement to prevent the distressing hindrances and delays that are far too common.
My second main concern is the unhappy impending limbo of those 10,000 or so BDTCs who, because they are not of Chinese stock, will not become Chinese nationals in 1997. In raising the issue I am not casting any doubt at all on the intentions of the Chinese. I am raising it because it is a matter of concern, whether we want to face it or not, to a great number of people in Hong Kong. I was the first hon. Member, I think, to raise this issue in the debate on 5 December, 1984.
Those 10,000 include about 6,000 Indians, some 3,000 Eurasians and some others such as the Portuguese. The draft order proposes that in 1997 they will become British overseas citizens—BOCs. This proliferation of initials for the six different types of British citizenship is very vexing. It is a pity we have had to indulge in such surreptitious terminologies to pretend that we are still an open-hearted country. The BOC status will give those people no right of abode in Britain or anywhere else and will effectively leave them stateless, however the Minister may try to argue to the contrary.
The people of Macao, a few miles away from Hong Kong, have full entitlement to Portuguese citizenship. After Portugal's entry into the EEC they will be entitled to free entry into the Community and into Britain to pursue work if they wish to do so. How ironic for the Hong Kongers. Millions of people abroad have the right to enter Britain—from Australia, Canada and New Zealand and, indeed, from South Africa when the funk flight starts, as it will in the next year or sooner. Millions can come too from the EEC.
But all those are white. It is only the colour of those 10,000, or most of them, and the immigration fears of every Government, sedulously worked on by the less worthy of our colleagues, some of whom are absent this evening, that prevent Her Majesty's Government from behaving honourably towards those 10,000. What discreditable conduct all this is in the wrapping up of our residual imperial responsibilities.
I have had considerable correspondence over the months with the Council of Hongkong Indian Association in its pursuit of the right to full British nationality and the right of abode in Britain. In one of its earlier letters, of 27 April 1985, it disputed the contention by Baroness Young in the other place that if the non-Chinese BDTCs were granted the right of abode there would be resentment by the majority Chinese. That false argument was disposed of roundly by the unanimous endorsement of Miss Lydia Dunn's speech in the Legislative Council debate of 4 December in Hong Kong when she argued, to the surprise of many people but absolutely sincerely, for just such special treatment for this non-Chinese minority.
In a letter of 31 December last year the president of the Association, Mr. Harilela, summarised their dilemma. I cannot do better than quote his words on the nationality issue:
Any form of nationality which has such serious shortcomings must be regarded as a uniquely attenuated one, and would leave its holder in a position of great disadvantage. The

BN(O) status carries no notion of citizenship, and is little better than a travel document facility. Yet this is all the British government has been prepared to offer to the 10,000 or so non-ethnic Chinese BDTCs. We therefore request that this small group of people be given full British citizenship with the right of abode in the UK. Of this group some 4,500 to 6,000 are of ethnic Indian origin without being Indian citizens, and while our Council is primarily concerned with the fate of this particular group, any plea which we make must also apply to the other 3,000 to 4,000 ethnic minority BDTCs who are largely of Portuguese or Eurasian origin.
The ethnic Indian BDTCs came to Hong Kong because it was a part of the British Empire. They were first brought out here by the British to help colonise Hong Kong in the nineteenth century and many have since served the Crown loyally as policemen, soldiers and civil servants. Many came here shortly after India became independent in 1947 and, having decided to settle here, renounced their Indian citizenship and became British in the expectation that they would spend the rest of their lives under British rule. They therefore severed their ties with India when they swore allegiance to the Crown.… In contrast with many Indian communities throughout the world the ethnic Indian community of Hong Kong is totally British in outlook and attitude.…
They are a legacy of the British empire and Britain must continue to be responsible for them.… The non-Chinese BDTC minorities face an uncertain future, and while the numbers involved are small the principle involved is a great one.
Really, no hon. Member can dispute or disregard our responsibility in this matter. Matters of principle, and this is one, should not be lightly put aside by parliamentarians.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the non-ethnic Chinese are seeking an assurance, not seeking to come to this country? They want an assurance that they will have a citizenship that means something and that gives them the right of abode in the place where they want to live—Hong Kong.

Mr. Faulds: Yes. I did not spell out that point because I thought that it was self-evident. It is obviously the reason for their arguments, and we should accept that it is a perfectly proper basis for their position.
Many of my hon. Friends will have read the excellent article in The Times a few days ago entitled
What will befall Hong Kong's dispossessed?
It was written by Anne Owers of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. She powerfully details the concern which should properly be shown for those people and argues the need to meet that concern by granting right of abode. She concludes her article with a paragraph that I want to read to the House; it is a warning that we should all heed and which I certainly endorse. It states:
Britain's failure to take responsibility for ensuring that all British people in Hong Kong have an effective and secure nationality status is now creating insecurity for them and for Hong Kong; in the long term"—
this is the point—
the legacy of bitterness and mistrust which it has created could do even greater harm to Britain's own long-term interests.
It is those long-term interests of this country about which we in this House should be concerned.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on a very clear exposition of a very complicated subject.
I, together with the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), was in Hong Kong for the historic opening of the Legislative Council building in October. A year had passed since I was there for the announcement of the joint agreement, so I had


the opportunity to see at first hand the really dramatic improvement in confidence since the agreement was signed.
Private home purchase had increased by 50 per cent., as had office space—both undeniable signs of increasing confidence. The stock exchange had recovered, the first elections for the Legislative Council had gone well, and all seemed to agree that the elected councillors were of very high calibre. That was a good start to the long and difficult period of adjustment that leads to 1997.
Confidence remains good, but brittle. People are naturally touchy. For example, the remarks of Xu Jia Tun of the New China News Agency were taken as an ominous sign that the PRC meant to interfere in the development of democracy in Hong Kong. Ji Pengfei, the director of the states council's Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, tried to allay fears during his visit, but not with great success. I am sure that such incidents will repeat themselves and try the nerves of the public many times before the takeover. I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) that we must not say anything tonight that will disturb confidence.
In debating the order—and a very impressive debate it was—the new Legislative Council brought to the surface all the worries that go with the practical formulation of even a small part of the agreement. This will happen time and again between now and 1997. The new Legislative Council will have a great responsibility in leading the people of Hong Kong through some troubled and emotive waters.
The council is extremely lucky, at this vital stage in its development, to have Miss Lydia Dunn in the all-important role of senior Unofficial Member. Her letter to all hon. Members highlights the three points that we have been discussing—the acceptability of the BN(O) passport, the future of former service men, and the treatment of the ethnic minorities.
On the question of the acceptability of the BN(O) passport, there is plenty that the Government could and should do to make the passport more acceptable. However, we shall have to exercise patience, for it cannot all be done at once. Clearly the Government must take every possible step to persuade foreign Governments to acknowledge its validity, but they cannot be expected to do so officially until the passport is in being so that they can see the exact form that it takes.
I see no reason why the 70 countries that already grant visa exemption should reject the passport. The unofficial assurance that the Government have obtained from Australia, America, Germany and so on, are as much as we can expect at this stage.
The British Government can act straight away by taking the lead in showing their willingness to make the entry of Hong Kong citizens into this country as simple as possible. I do not apologise for repeating what has already been said about the difficulties of the Hong Kong people when trying easily to come into this country. They are great travellers. There are more than 1 million international departures from Hong Kong every year.
I must tell my hon. and learned Friend that one of the main sources of friction between Hong Kong and Britain is, and has been for many years, the treatment of Hong Kong citizens at British airports. It does not seem to improve, whatever protests we make. I press the Home

Office to examine present practice carefully, and to get it improved well before we come to the problem of dealing with the new passports.
As the PRC, understandably, will not countenance a passport issued by a colonial power granting the right of abode in Hong Kong, it appears that achieving the same effect by reference to the identity card is as good a solution as any. Negotiations leading to that solution were a very reassuring example to the people of Hong Kong that the joint liaison committee really does work. It was effective in tackling a practical problem that affects the daily lives of the people.
The plan to issue the first BN(O) passports in 1987 is entirely sensible as that provides plenty of time to establish the passport's validity before the transfer of power. The Minister appears to assume that a certificate of entry, in addition to a passport, is something that everybody will naturally understand to be necessary. He will have to explain that more convincingly than he has done so far to persuade the people of Hong Kong or me that that is so. At present, it is a very tiresome chore.
I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the speech of Mr. Swayne and others in the Legislative Council debate. I should like to hear his answer to the question put by Mr. Howard Young, who is not only a Legislative Councillor but the managing director of Swire Travel, about how it is possible for the American Government to issue free of charge visas of indefinite validity, while the Hong Kong Government charge £12.
On the question of the volunteer prisoners of war, I entirely support my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South, who is knowledgeable on this subject. It could no doubt be argued with legal precision that that would be illogical, that it would set a precedent, and so on. But when Governments make illogical exceptions of that sort, they often show themselves to be not only kindly but wise. The problem gets smaller as the numbers get less. The procedural difficulties cannot be very great. Where there is a will there is a way. It seems to me that this is the kind of action that will show the people of Hong Kong that if Her Majesty's Government can help they will do so.
The unanimous recommendation of the Legislative Council regarding ethnic minorities is a more difficult problem for the Government. I have listened to the arguments of their representatives many time and I sympathise with them. Moreover, I realise that if the outcome of the joint agreement is as we hope, very few members of the minority are likely to take advantage of their right of abode in Britain. Taking all that into account. I still appreciate the difficulty facing the Minister. He has to deal with thousands of claims from all over the world and they all think that they have justified reasons for a right of abode in Britain. He has a difficult task. All I ask is that he gives the matter serious consideration because people feel strongly about it and it is a problem which cannot be shrugged off.
Members of the Legislative Council will be disappointed with the outcome of this debate. Despite the unanimity of their views on the three issues, they will not receive the firm undertaking on all three subjects they had hoped for. However, I ask them not to assume or to say that their views have been ignored or scorned on this or any future occasion. That would be counter-productive.
They have many friends in the House and in the other place who will continue to fight their case. We are their allies, not their opponents.
The Government are not unsympathetic to Hong Kong. I am proud of the persistent and untiring efforts of the Government at the highest level, especially over the past four years, which have produced a far more promising long-term outlook for the territory than many of us had hoped. I assure the Legislative Council that their friends here will not let up on their efforts on behalf of the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) with great attention and I am able to agree with many, if not all, of them. In previous discussions about Hong Kong I have expressed my grave reservations about the way in which the British Government have handled the matter of nationality for the people of Hong Kong, in particular the status and the future of BDTC passport holders. I believe that we have a moral responsibility towards BDTC passport holders which was not adequately fulfilled by Britain.
I regret to say that the House of Commons, which has built its reputation on its fearless championing of the causes of those who are oppressed or dispossessed—particularly on an international basis— has on this occasion all too easily been viewed as part of the conspiracy to sweep some of the issues under the carpet. There has been an all too cosy cross-party agreement on some of the issues where it would have served the people of Hong Kong better if there had been a more strenuous debate.
I appreciate that those are uncomfortable words with which, no doubt, many hon. Members will disagree. However, the sentiments that I have expressed are not only my own; they are also widely, and in my view justifiably, held in Hong Kong itself. We must recognise the dissatisfaction and concern about this issue in Hong Kong. That point was made in the report of the assessment office on the Anglo-Chinese agreement. The assessment team found that on nationality
most of those who commented…did so in adverse or critical terms … There was a widely shared hope that the British Government and Parliament may find a way of assurance for BDTCs in coming years".
It is within that context that we now hold the debate.
I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to provide, as he has already suggested, thousands of careful reasons for not taking the action that his heart and our sense of justice require. Those reasons will, no doubt, be based on premises and previous practices. However, there have been no premises for the situation in which we find ourselves. Britain has handed countries over to self-government but has never handed over an entire people lock, stock and barrel to another Government. Moreover, many of those inhabitants fled from that Government in fear and in the hope of freedom. I make no comment about the present state of the PRC Government. We know that there are many moves in that Government which must be welcome and reassuring. I merely state the fact that many people have fled from a previous tyranny. We are facing

a new problem where old practices do not apply and should not be applied. If the Minister recognises nothing else I hope that he will recognise that.
It must be recognised that decisions being made today will be made against a background of cynicism towards Britain and a fear for the future of Hong Kong. We do not want to encourage that, but we should recognise that half the population of Hong Kong are very young and have their whole future to look forward to. Indeed, half of them are under 35 years of age. More importantly, many are immigrants who have known statelessness and the fear of being a refugee.

Mr. Paul Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: I would prefer not to. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be called. I ask him to forgive me.
What the Minister decides today will be of special importance and will be taken as a mark of Britain's seriousness towards achieving an equitable solution in Hong Kong. There is already a prevailing feeling in the colony, which may be justified or not, that Britain simply wants to walk away from the problem with the minimum of inconvenience. If that feeling is untrue we can show it by the decisions that we take today and that the Minister will take in due course.
The British Government are offering two forms of "citizenship". I put the word citizenship in inverted commas. There is British national (overseas) status and British overseas citizenship status. Bluntly, and discarding euphemism, they are merely two different names for the same thing. They both describe a British nationality that carries no right of abode anywhere, cannot be passed on to the children except in limited circumstances, and is little more than a travel facility. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) mentioned in his excellent speech the contrary situation in Macao in the way in which the Portuguese are treating their people in similar circumstances. He said, and it is right to point out, that at exactly the same time as the people in Hong Kong may be apprehensive about the approach of 1997, they will be able to look 40 or 50 miles across the bay to 80,000 people who have the right to enter Britain which is denied to Britain's own nationals in Hong Kong. It is scarcely surprising that the issue is giving rise to strong feelings.
I do not claim that Britain can or could provide a home or even a right to work for all BDTC passport holders in Hong Kong. However, there are a limited number of assurances that we can provide in the present circumstances. We should be prepared to use section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 in a liberal manner. That section allowed those who have worked in a paid or unpaid capacity for the British Government to register as British citizens at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
At present, it appears—I ask the Minister to comment on this, as we had a small exchange about it earlier—that no one is being granted British citizenship under this section in case it increases the insecurity. This is simply inadequate and, as it creates insecurity in those who now assist us in the running of Hong Kong, it is counter-productive as well. The Home Secretary should be prepared now to set out his criteria for granting citizenship under this section and to put the provisions into operation as soon as possible.
In view of the importance of the decisions that the Home Secretary will be taking, there should be a right of


appeal against those decisions. If he cannot do this, I ask him to look especially at the position of former service men. There are a mere 400 of them and the Government should make it clear that they will give sympathetic consideration to applicants from this group. To disown a brave and loyal people who deserve our gratitude, or to show indifference towards them, is morally wrong and, as importantly, a symbol of our lack of concern in Hong Kong.
I move on to the status of the BN(O) passport. On the day of our last debate on this subject, I understand that the Hong Kong Government gave assurances that BDTC passports in the future. and those of the special administrative region, should state, albeit indirectly, the holder's right of abode in Hong Kong. Doubts remain over this and it is essential that the Government take action to ensure that the new passport is as fully acceptable as present BDTC passports are for foreign travel. We were all reassured by what the Minister had to say about the progress of those negotiations. I hope that he will carry them through with full energy, and take such opportunities as he can to report progress to the House. If he does not, I hope that he will be questioned by hon. Members about the progress.
As to entry into the United Kingdom by people from Hong Kong, they must be given assurances that the new BN(O) passports will give freedom of entry for visits. At best, this should be operative for the period of validity of the passport and at the very least for a specified period. We should understand the position of Hong Kong well, because Hong Kong survives, as Britain always has, on its trading capacity. The future of the colony will be terribly threatened if international contacts are in any way inhibited by the status of the new passport. This matter goes into the heart of the survival of Hong Kong itself, and it is up to the British Government to take action to make sure that their rhetoric about wanting a secure future for the colony is honoured by their action. I was reassured to discover that the Minister is thinking seriously about this.
The greatest issue in this debate is the position of the minorities. There are about 10,000 BDTC passport holders in Hong Kong who are not ethnically Chinese and who, therefore, unlike the vast majority, are not entitled to Chinese nationality. Many of these have been in Hong Kong under British rule for many generations. One family arrived with the British in 1842 and set up the first ferry service between the mainland and the island. Nearly all have served Britain over the years in one capacity or another. The Minister's proposals will, quite simply, leave these people stateless.
The Minister is frowning, so I shall describe their situation. They will have a citizenship for one country—Britain—in which they are not entitled to a right of abode, and they will have a right of abode in another country—China—in which they will not have citizenship. I ask any hon. Member how he would feel if, for example, he had the citizenship of Britain but was not entitled to live here but was entitled to live in France while not having citizenship, even in the stability of the European position. We are thrusting 10,000 people into a hybrid insecure position while their future is worrying and somewhat opaque.
I am not in any way undermining the ability, strength and determination of the Chinese Government to honour their agreement. However, some of the rights enshrined in the Chinese national status are not honoured, and that must

worry people living in Hong Kong. The future is unclear and it would be an abandonment of Britain's right to be called a civilised nation if we did not do something to correct this. We cannot provide assurances into the distant future, but we must provide some for the interim period between now and the time when we see how the new arrangements for Hong Kong are developing.
The non-ethnic Chinese do not wish to flood into Britain—why should they? In most cases they run highly successful businesses in Hong Kong and are happy. However, they want the right of abode somewhere and feel justifiably aggrieved that they are being denied it. They should be granted full British citizenship. There are few enough of them, and it would be disgraceful to leave them out in the cold or in a precarious position for our convenience.
There is no point in the Minister saying that this would encourage others, for the Hong Kong Chinese population agreed that the minorities should be regarded as a special case.
The matter of Vietnamese refugees was mentioned by other right hon. and hon. Members. In the past, I have spoken in strong terms about the conditions of the Vietnamese refugees. I visited the refugee camps in Hong Kong just before Christmas and I found a vast improvement in the conditions under which they are held. However, the existence of the camps is an affront. The refugees' only crime has been to flee from tyranny to what they believed to be freedom. We can imagine their anger at finding themselves, as a consequence, incarcerated in barbed wire camps. However humane the inner regimes of those camps, they are still barbed wire camps.
We cannot solve the problem immediately, but it is up to Britain, as several hon. Members have already said, to take a lead in resettling those unfortunate people. I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that it is the Government's policy to solve the problem before 1997.

Mr. Robert Adley: I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your excellent timing in returning just in time to call me. However, this is a serious debate. I was reminded of its seriousness for the people of Hong Kong by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who spoke yesterday about the problems of his constituents. Even the hon. Gentleman would agree that those problems pale into insignificance beside the fears of the people of Hong Kong. In some ways their fears are unreal, but in certain instances, as has been mentioned already this evening, they are whipped up and generated by a variety of people for their own ends.
The hon. Member for Yeovil said that the people of Hong Kong are being handed over to China. We must recognise that that is inaccurate. Hong Kong is being returned to China. Unless we understand the historic context within which the British-Chinese agreement has been reached, we are in danger of making a range of allegations, assertions and assumptions that do nothing but harm to the prospects of the Hong Kong people.
I am glad to be following my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan), as I always seem to be doing in discussions about Hong Kong. I echo the crucial point that they made. The agreement is an historic one. The future of the people of Hong Kong does not depend on the immigration legislation of this


House. It depends on the willingness and ability of the British and Chinese Governments to do what they can to maintain stability and prosperity in Hong Kong. I reject the use of such phrases as "if all else fails" and "fallback position". They are not only pessimistic but deeply offensive to the Government of the People's Republic of China.' Each time that people comment about the need for the people of Hong Kong to have a "fallback position" that demonstrates implicitly not only our mistrust of the willingness and ability of the parties to the agreement to make it stick, but our mistrust of the motives of the Government of the People's Republic of China.
I echo strongly the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South. There is no evidence to suggest that the Chinese Government have anything but the strongest desire to ensure that the agreement works. It is vital that the people of Hong Kong receive the message of the House that our first priority is to do everything that we can to ensure that the agreement sticks and works. That is our primary responsibility and it is the best guarantee that we can give to the people of Hong Kong of a secure future in the land of their birth and abode.
The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred to the excellent letter from my old friend Hari Harilela. Page 3 of his letter states:
Very few ethnic Indian BDTCs would want to leave Hong Kong under the present circumstances.
I am sure that that is true. We are not dealing here with what I might paraphrase as a Bangladeshi immigration-type debate, because we are not dealing with large numbers of people who deliberately want to come to this country to better themselves. I am thus delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on the Front Bench. This is not a normal immigration debate.
If we were merely talking about numbers I would have no objection to welcoming with open arms large numbers of the citizens of Hong Kong who might wish to come and take up permanent abode in this country. I say that in the light of a rather aggravating and unpleasant conversation on this subject that I had with one of my constituents as recently as last Friday evening. But that is not the proposition that we are discussing. Even to discuss the matter in such terms is to set the debate's context incorrectly.
I hope that we recognise that we have priorities this evening other than to discuss the position as though it were an ordinary immigration debate.
There is a direct conflict between the ambition to maintain stability in Hong Kong and the demand of people in Hong Kong to have the right to live in the United Kingdom. Fundamental change in Hong Kong was always inevitable. Now it is on the horizon. We must now deal with the obstacles to the maintenance of stability.
I believe that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) used the phrase a "few colonial types". There are a "few colonial types" in Hong Kong, deliberately seeking to stir up discontent in Hong Kong, whose ambition is to sow dissent between Britain and China to achieve their rather weird objectives. Such people are not restricted solely to ex-colonial types, as he rather quaintly put it.
In the previous Hong Kong debate I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and mentioned the lovely lady,

Miss Emily Lau, who shelters behind the comfort of a British passport through her husband to make a series of innuendos from her position as a journalist on the Far East Economic Review. They provide a classic example of the misuse of a journalist's position not to report news but to put forward one's own political views.
We in this House have an obligation to point out to the people of Hong Kong that there are some people—few—who for their own political motivations want the agreement to fail. It is essential that we point out who they are and what they are doing.
I do not care whether the editor of the Far East Economic Review, who refused to publish my letter when I wrote to him, proceeds to attack me in his column about a letter that he has not published. People in the far east last week said to me, "What on earth was Derek Davies going on about attacking you in his article?" Not surprisingly, Mr. Davies had forgotten that if he refused to publish my letter and then attacked me for what I said in it, the people who read his magazine might be a little confused. I can take his criticism lightly. I am amused at being accused of McCarthyite tactics and such allegations, but Mr. Davies is not worth wasting time on and I do not propose to do so.
I intervened in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend to ask about the position of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in so far as they face the possibility of citizenship of the People's Republic of China. It would be unfair in the short time available to read the question that I posed to and the answer that I received yesterday from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I refer all hon. Members to it.
First, it is wrong to assume that the ethnic minorities would be stateless. I reject that proposition, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others. Secondly, it is wrong to assume that their only alternative to staying in Hong Kong is citizenship of, and the right of abode in, this country. The People's Republic of China is reacquiring Hong Kong. It is to it that the British people and Parliament properly have turned and should continue to turn to see what alternative citizenship might be available to those people.
When my hon. and learned Friend is winding up this debate, I should like to hear him say that, as events unfold in the months and years ahead, this option will be pursued with the Chinese Government, and that information on it will be made available regularly and openly to the people in Hong Kong who might be involved. I asked my hon. and learned Friend about that before. It would do great credit to the Government of the People's Republic of China if they opened their minds very broadly to the fact that non-Chinese might want to be entitled to citizenship of the People's Republic after this agreement comes into force.
Our responsibility is clear, and it is not just a responsibility to the rich and powerful people in Hong Kong, many of whom already have the right of access to the United Kingdom. We have a responsibility to the millions of Hong Kong citizens who have neither the desire nor the intention ever to come within thousands of miles of the United Kingdom. If they are to have a secure future, they have one overriding priority, and that is to see that the agreement between our two Governments works and that nothing is said or done that so aggravates and annoys either of the parties to the agreement that there might be a wish to wonder whether it is all worthwhile.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South that the British-Chinese agreement is a remarkable one. Let us spend a little less time worrying about what will happen if it goes wrong and a little more time making sure that it goes right.

Mr. Tom Pendry: This is too important a debate to be dealt with in just over two and a half hours. That fact was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). Therefore, I will endeavour to be brief.
I must declare an interest, because I lived for some 18 months in Hong Kong. That is not as long as some of my hon. Friends lived there, but as a former middleweight boxing champion of Hong Kong perhaps I should again do battle for it on this occasion. Perhaps the only thing on which I agree—not generally but in this debate—with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is that it would be churlish and stupid in the extreme for any hon. Member to say that the Foreign Secretary and his team did not conclude by the joint agreement a mighty achievement, because it was a mighty achievement by any standard. I start from that premise, and I do not want to do anything to undermine that agreement.
On 5 December 1984 the Foreign Secretary said:
it would be too much to expect that this document"——
that is, the draft agreement—
which has emerged from extremely complex and sometimes difficult negotiations, could provide the whole answer to every problem".—[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 397.]
I certainly concur with that. We are debating the order in that context. Certainly it is far from perfect. To their credit, the Government have said that they will withdraw and revise the order if necessary to take account of the views of hon. Members and of their Lordships in another place and, of course, the views of the people of Hong Kong. In the Official Report of the other place on 19 February last year, Baroness Young said just that. She said that this was an "order with green edges" and that, if necessary, the Government would withdraw and revise it.
We know that on one important aspect at least there is no doubt that the people of Hong Kong speak with one loud voice, and that is on the problem of the inequities contained in the nationality provisions and their effects on a relatively small number of people in the colony, the non-Chinese ethnics. I refer to a small number deliberately, because Home Office Ministers in particular become paranoid when one talks about large numbers of potential immigrants. We are talking about 10,000 or so. The Minister of State is well aware that it is rare for both the Official and Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council ever to reach a unanimous agreement, but they did so by means of the resolution that was referred to by a number of hon. Members.
The three points that are contained in the resolution have been agreed by both the Official and the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council. Those who follow Hong Kong affairs know that this is very rare. I was in Hong Kong in October, not as a guest of the Government but because I was on my way to Australia as a member of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation.
I spent about 10 days in the colony. I was told that these modest demands were the least that the British Government could accept.
I have already praised the members of the joint declaration and its authors. However, what is being advanced by both the non-elected and the elected representatives of the Legislative Council will in no way—I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch agrees with me—undermine that declaration. No negotiations are required. It is a British problem. That is acknowledged by the Chinese. I refer those hon. Members who can read Chinese to the pro-Communist Chinese newspaper Wan Wei Po. In a recent editorial, it makes it very clear that this is a British problem. It says:
To deal with this question, one cannot cut adrift history. One should not depart from reality. These people have always held British passports. If the result of these several changes causes them to lose their nationality, then, to them, this would be hard to accept.
I return to the numbers game. Of the 10,000 or so non-Chinese ethnics, most of whom are members of the Indian community, very few intend to leave Hong Kong. However, if they did leave Hong Kong, what an enterprising lot they would be. They would fit very neatly indeed into the mould that the Prime Minister is for ever saying we should have in British industry. However, they do not wish to depart from the spirit of the joint declaration. They helped to build Hong Kong into the very strong economic unit that it is today. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will make it clear how the ethnic Chinese can become Chinese nationals. That point is not clear to me.
Article 6 of the Chinese nationality law state:
any person who is born in China whose parents are stateless or of uncertain nationality should have settled in China as Chinese nationals".
These people are not stateless. They have British National (Overseas) passports. They are not of uncertain nationality, so how do they qualify? Article 7 says:
Aliens or stateless persons who are willing to abide by China's constitutions and laws may acquire Chinese nationality upon approval of their applications, provided that

(i) they are close relatives to Chinese nationals, or
(ii) they have settled in China, or
(iii) they have other legitimate reasons."

Article 14 says:
The acquisition, renunciation or restoration of Chinese nationality shall go through the formality of application".
It is true that it is grace and favour. Nobody can be certain about it, so clearly it is a uniquely British problem.
It is as much a British problem as the fate of those who lived in Gibraltar or in the Falkland Islands when the British Government took a decision that was not very different from the one that they are taking now. These people, or their ancestors, went to Hong Kong, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) because it was part of the British empire. As my hon. Friend said, they served the Crown loyally as soldiers, policemen and civil servants. They expected to be treated then, as now, by the British in the way in which the British were accustomed, so we are told, to deal with those who went to the colonies. I do not have time to dwell upon that point, because I might disagree with certain right hon. and hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, about it. I do not wish to dwell, because of the time, either, upon the fate of the Vietnamese refugees in this country, or former service men. I am sure that other hon. Members will do so.
I wish to conclude with someting that is a little flowery, in line with the words that I have used about the colonies. It is from a recent editorial in the Hong Kong Standard:


The sun has long set upon the British Empire. What remains to be seen is whether an obligation going back 150 years and honour have sunk below the distant mountains.
I hope that at the end of this debate it will be clear that honour and obligation will remain intact as far as this country is concerned. It is not just the non-Chinese ethnics that we are talking about; it is the entire people of the colony of Hong Kong who believe that this group of people is being wronged by this Government.
It is good that this is a draft order and that we can alter it. We plead that the Government will heed this message from hon. Members who feel strongly about Hong Kong and especially about its minority groups, and will amend the order before too long.

Mr. James Couchman: I rise with some humility after the eloquent and deeply knowledgeable speeches by right hon. and hon. Members who know Hong Kong far better than I. It is nine months since the Hong Kong Act received the Royal Assent and about a year since it went through the House in record time. As the Bill went through its various stages, great concern was expressed about nationality, particularly the vexed question of the transfer of British nationality by way of BDTC to the new BN(O) nationality. Since the passage of the Bill, there seem to have been a number of hiccoughs in the morale of the people of Hong Kong. The way in which we deal with the question of nationality is most crucial for morale in the colony at present. The arrangements which we make when the order is confirmed and comes to us as a firm order will be absolutely vital in determining the way in which the passage towards 1997 continues.
It is clear from the speeches made during the LegCo debate on 4 December that there was a great deal of concern about the three questions mentioned so frequently tonight: the integrity of the BN(O) passport, which seems to be on the way to being resolved in the joint discussions with the Chinese; the ex-service men so eloquently referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker); and the non-Chinese ethnic minorities.
There is a clear cynicism about the status and currency of British overseas citizenship, and with some reason. Whether this somewhat nebulous concept has any validity has to be proved to us by the Government. The greatest concern in this regard is the position of the succeeding generations of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities, about which so much has been said this evening. I would like to add to the plea that a particular concession be granted to the ex-service men. Those who have served king and country in this way have every right to our most sympathetic consideration, and I am sure that those words are unlikely to fall on deaf ears.
I do not want to go over ground which has been covered very well throughout the debate. [Interruption.] Nor have I time in any case, as I am being reminded by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) sitting below me. I believe that there should be no question about granting the right of abode in the United Kingdom to the ex-service men.
That brings me to the question of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities, some 10,000 people, mostly Indian. They or their forebears came to Hong Kong, for the most

part, before India received its independence and they have served Britain in the colony for many years. As we have already been told by several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, very few of these people would actually wish to come to live in the United Kingdom at present, but it is incumbent on Britain to look at their claims with due consideration and sympathy, for at several times during their lives it is quite likely that they have had a right of abode here. It would be churlish if we forgot that.
It also seems that the statelessness which the draft order seeks to avoid could result from our treatment of the matter. These people have no chance of emigrating to India or Pakistan because they have not lived there for many years. Indeed, few speak the language, and in any case some would return to Pakistan as Hindus, which would be a particularly unattractive prospect. We have a responsibility to the minorities which is special and apart from our responsibilities for the vast majority of Hong Kong people who are ethnically Chinese. The small minority would have almost no impact on our general immigration policy, and I feel certain that the necessary steps can be taken—there is plenty of time—to encompass their desire for British citizenship as opposed to BN(O) or BOC status within the regulation when it is drawn.
Several hon. Members have said that Hong Kong is in a unique position. It is unique in the history of decolonisation. We are handing it back to the Chinese, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said. It behoves the House and the Government to pay. special attention to the wants of two small minorities—the ex-service men and the non-Chinese ethnic minority.

Dr. John Marek: I agree completely with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), and wish to express my anxiety about the draft Order in Council. It is not right and the Government need to change it before it is generally acceptable, most importantly in Hong Kong, and in the House. It is a pity that the Front Bench spokesmen were not spokesmen on foreign affairs—I say that with no disrespect to the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs)—because we are talking not about the immigration policy of Britain, but about the future of Hong Kong. Although at present Hong Kong has the status of a colony of the United Kingdom, it is governed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and we must always have that at the front of our minds. Indeed, that is obvious to the people of Hong Kong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) and I paid a visit to Hong Kong earlier this year, and we were struck by the knowledge that all sections of society had of the matter, and by their feeling that the United Kingdom had completed a deal with the People's Republic of China which was the best deal in the circumstances, and that it now wished to wash its hands and let the matter go quietly away. I do not think that that is true, and no hon. Member will wish that to happen. If that is the case, we must consider what is best for a smooth transition so that the people of Hong Kong can continue to prosper, and life can go on as they wish it to do. We must not worry about judging matters in line with our general policy on immigration, as the Minister does.
Although the agreement was the best one available, it was not widely welcomed by the people of Hong Kong,


who are resigned to the fact that it has been made and that they must make it work. They may come positively to enthuse about it in years to come, but they are not doing so now.
This is an important subject, and it is a pity that we have only two and a half hours of debate on it. The legislative council decision was a unanimous one which was supported by the unofficial members and by the Government members. It must be taken seriously by this House and the Government.
If I may deal with the service men, there are 100 or 400—it does not matter what the number is. I am sure that the Government, if they wanted to, could come to some agreement on what the status of service men should be and, if they want the right of abode in this country, they should be able to have it. It is not a question of whether 100 or 400 might be acceptable. Both numbers are very small.
With regard to the problem of the ethnic minorities, I will not repeat the points which have been made by other hon. Members. There is great concern in Hong Kong—and it will grow unless the House does something about it—about the effective statelessness of the ethnic minorities if nothing is done about their status. I realise that the Government have tried to put together a package which will accommodate the wishes of the ethnic minorities, but they have not succeeded. It is the continuing stability and prosperity of Hong Kong which is important. The Government must try again. The only answer in my view is to give the minorities, if they want it and wish to take it up, the right of abode in this country. If we get things right in Hong Kong, no one will want to come to this country in any case—perhaps a few hundred at the most. If we get things wrong, the ethnic minorities will have as a fallback position the assurance that they have somewhere to go and somewhere they can call their home. I confidently say that it is a right of abode which would be used by no more than perhaps a few hundred people.
Then there is the question of entry into the United Kingdom for Hong Kong people of Chinese origin. I came back from Hong Kong a few days ago through Gatwick airport. Only two windows were open for the passengers on the flight, who were mainly Chinese. The two queues were of seventy or eighty people each. I watched for about half an hour. Everyone had to wait a minute and a half or two minutes. The details were handled expeditiously. However, if 70 or 80 people had been in each line, I imagine that it would have been about two hours before the last person passed through immigration—hardly something to get excited about when entering the United Kingdom.
One young boy appeared not to have his papers in order, he was led away fairly early and I did not see him again. This has been called hassle, and so it is. We have to do something about it. People from Hong Kong who come to this country not to stay but on business, to visit friends or on holiday should be able to do so without having to go through many formalities and feeling that they are being hassled. I know that it is dangerous to generalise on the basis of just one visit, but this has been not only my evidence but that of other people. Something needs to be done about it. I support fully the legislative council decision to put into the passport the right of entry to the United Kingdom. That would be straightforward.
In this issue it is not right for the Government or Parliament to take all the decisions without paying attention to what might happen after the next general election or the one after that. We have until 1997. I suggest that the Government would be wise to discuss the matter with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and see whether some common agreement might be attained. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be more than happy to do this. Perhaps we can have a bipartisan policy. We are all on the same side. We want Hong Kong to prosper, and we want there to be stability in Hong Kong. We want the changeover in 1997 to go as smoothly and as quietly as possible. If the Government pay attention to what has been said in the debate, I am sure that that will happen.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am confident that the people of Hong Kong and hon. Members would prefer to listen to the Minister than to me, so I shall be brief. I feel strongly that we have a duty to take care of the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong. They have made their money, created their lives and brought up their families in Hong Kong. They owe their prosperity to Hong Kong. It would be wrong, when the future of Hong Kong seems to be moving more brightly than expected, and when things are getting better, to say to them that the need for a fallback position is so urgent and imperative that we should create it now. We should see whether the Chinese will move towards a clearer statement of the right of those people to Chinese citizenship in 1997 before we feel bound to take any action.
I have no way of knowing what electoral fortune will bring, but I hope that I shall still represent Mid-Kent in 1997. If I do, I shall certainly bring the issue to the attention of the Government of that day. If the non-Chinese ethnic minority are in danger of being harassed or persecuted, I shall say that we should pick up the obligation that we have incurred over the centuries. That will be the time to act, and I hope that we shall do so.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Like all hon. Members, I support the three proposals by the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. I spent some childhood years as part of a tiny ethnic minority in inland China as well as in Hong Kong. We were happy there, but I am sure that the safety valve that we had increased the harmony among the foreigners who worked to contribute to China.
The order is important for current political reasons within Hong Kong and for its relations with Britain and China. It is necessary to build substance into the joint declaration and the British and Chinese memoranda which it contains. That needs the support and confidence of China and, most important, of the people of Hong Kong.
The changes will cause little difficulty in Britain, but if we are half-hearted in our commitment to the agreement, that will encourage China to be half-hearted in fulfilling its more important commitments. It will lead the people of Hong Kong now—not in 1997—to doubt the substance of the agreement, particularly about the positive contribution that they have to make to the future running of the special administrative region. The vital building up and the capacity of Hong Kong's peoples to look after the special administrative region will be set back at a critical stage. We must do everything that we can to build the


people of Hong Kong's confidence and that of their elected representatives, so that they can speak and expect to be listened to by the sovereign power.
Britain exercises that power today. Tomorrow it will be exercised by China. To concede the point will cost Britain little, but it will count for much in Hong Kong and, through Hong Kong, in our relations with China.
The Minister has been far from hostile. I think that he will consider further the views expressed in the House. I hope that he can be more positive in his acceptance of our arguments.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The debate on the treatment of non-ethnic Chinese has swung between two points of view. One is that that group including prisoners of war and service men should be allowed to become full British nationals but the Government have proposed that those groups should not be allowed in because we will upset the Chinese Government by not trusting their promises and it may open a gate to 3 million people who want to come in.
In my last half minute may I suggest a middle way—to treat applications for full citizenship on a case-by-case basis and on their merits. This is precisely the approach that the Government have adopted to stateless British citizens who no longer opt for citizenship of China. It is also the approach that is covered by section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 and exercised at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
If our hopes about the future of Hong Kong are fulfilled and China, as we hope and expect, honours its obligations, few people will be making applications. The procedural problems in judging each case on its merits would then not arise. I ask my hon. and learned Friend who has listened to this debate on behalf of the Government to take this suggestion of the middle way.

Mr. Dubs: I have confined myself to two or three minutes because I wanted to give as many hon. Members as possible the chance to have their say, although I realise that there is still much to be said.
There has been much criticism of the Order in Council regarding passports and their acceptability in Britain and other countries. The position of prisoners of war and the position of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. I believe that the overwhelming opinion of the House is to ask the Minister to look at all this again.
Whatever the Minister decides when the Order in Council comes back to use the Labour party, when next in government, will certainly look at it again. May I remind the Minister that the Labour party is committed to the repeal of the Immigration Act 1971 and the repeal of the British Nationality Act 1981. We would replace both of those measures with non-discriminatory legislation. In that context we would sympathetically review the claims of the ethnic minorities as well as claims from other groups in Hong Kong and elsewhere. We would thus arrive at a policy of nationality and immigration which is just and honourable.
The least the House can do is to ask the Minister to look at the claims of these people as a Labour Government would do as soon as we had the chance. We shall press this

to a vote tonight to keep pressure on the Minister. It may be that Government Back Benchers will support us in the Division Lobby. Whether they do or not, we wish to make it clear to the people of Hong Kong and the people of Britain that we are not satisfied with the Order in Council and we ask the Minister to think again before he brings it back to us.

Mr. Waddington: This has been a good debate, although the beginning of the finale was rather odd. I do not propose to dwell on the undertaking just given by the hon. Gentleman. It is a most irresponsible undertaking, and it did not help the House to understand how the Labour party's proposals have anything to do with whether we should admit 400 or 500 ex-service men, or whether we should admit those in Hong Kong who are not of Chinese ethnic origin.
The House is indebted to the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, some with a close knowledge of Hong Kong, but all with concern for its future. We are here tonight because, during the passage of the Hong Kong Bill, the House asked that there should be a general debate on the draft Order in Council so that the Government could listen to and study various points of view before laying a final draft and asking the House's approval. I have listened, and we shall study.
I remind the House and listeners elsewhere that this is a debate on the Adjournment. It is not a motion asking for approval of the White Paper or of a draft Order in Council. I was therefore surprised, as no doubt were some other hon. Members, to hear talk before we came here to the effect that the Opposition were thinking of dividing the House. If that is their decision, it is odd, as the whole object of the exercise is to have an open and frank discussion so that everybody can say what he thinks about the White Paper and the draft order and we can go away and think about it.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) asked about those who might be at risk after the Chinese takeover. I can only repeat that undertakings have been given to some people in Government service. As for the Vietnamese refugees, I remind the House that the number of people in the closed and open camps in Hong Kong has decreased by 2,500 in the past 12 months, which is moderately encouraging. The United Kingdom has recently agreed to take some 500 family reunion cases, in addition to those who are coming here anyhow under the orderly departure programme, and the ordinary family reunion criteria. We are working hard, and with some success, to persuade other countries to help more. We strongly hope that the problem of refugees in camps will be solved long before 1997.
I should like now to consider the endorsement in the passport to make it easier for people to come here and to get through immigration control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) and others mentioned this. It is not an easy problem. It would be odd to say that a person who does not have the right of abode here must not subject himself to immigration control like anyone else. I am aware of the worry expressed in Hong Kong, and I understand that they want to feel that they are receiving proper consideration. We shall think about the matter carefully, in case we can arrive at an acceptable formula.
As for the ex-service men, there have been pleas for us to use the power in section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Many have already made claims under that section, and many more will do so. We have always said that we will use the power most sparingly. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was at great pains during the debate on the British Nationality Bill to make that clear. I must also make it absolutely plain that there are service men all over the world who gave great service to humanity during the war. All over the world there are service men who suffered confinement and deprivation. There are Sikhs, Gurkhas and countless others who might feel that they, too, have a claim to British citizenship if claims under section 4(5) are granted.

Mr. Ashdown: I shall ignore the fact that such people are not in the same circumstances as people in Hong Kong. Have any claims—not just those made by service men under section 4(5)—been granted?

Mr. Waddington: No, but a number of claims are under consideration, and of course they need careful consideration.
I should like to deal now with the question of non-Chinese British dependent territory citizens. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that to grant British citizenship now would certainly be looked at by some, particularly the Chinese, as a demonstration of a lack of confidence in the Sino-British agreement. Those who have been urging that course have frankly admitted that the real argument is that there should be an escape route for these people in case things go wrong.
Non-Chinese BDTCs can, like others, apply for BN(O) citizenship. If they do not apply, there are fallback provisions and the availability of BOC status until the middle of the next century. Such people would be able to apply to become Chinese nationals. I shall try to clarify matters for the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, who are concerned about that.
That matter has been discussed with the Chinese Government in the Sino-British joint liaison group. The Chinese Government have confirmed that non-Chinese who meet the legal requirements under the Chinese nationality law may apply for Chinese nationality and that such cases would be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. People will not, of course, be compelled to apply for Chinese nationality.
The right of abode provisions agreed with the Chinese Government provide the best possible guarantee that those people established in Hong Kong and their children can continue to live there. There is no other satisfactory or reliable way to provide people in Hong Kong with what they want—the right of abode there. In the unlikely event of any British nationals being forced to leave Hong Kong and having nowhere to go, we have made it clear that we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically whether to admit such people on a case-by-case basis in the light of particular circumstances.
In trying to identify particular groups, one immediately runs into trouble. Of course, one never finds two groups in the same position. An examination of a group's composition shows that people within a particular group are not all in the same place.
That is a valuable reminder to the House that it is always possible for the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion to allow someone to enter the country and later qualify for British nationality if there is exceptional hardship. In the case of a minor, somebody under the age of majority, section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows the Home Secretary to grant British nationality as a matter of discretion.
Hon. Members are concerned that we should act as quickly as possible to ensure that the BN(O) passport, when it is issued, will be recognised by other countries and be as acceptable as the present BDTC passport. The Government will not forget the advice that has been given. That advice is in accordance with the plans already made by the Foreign Office in that regard. I was able to tell the House earlier that great strides have already been made, and it is very encouraging indeed that certain countries have made it plain that they are happy to acknowledge and recognise that passport.
The debate was an opportunity for the House to express its views. We have had a most interesting debate, and some of the matters mentioned go wider than the draft Order in Council. Of course, on the question of the endorsement of the passport, the Government cannot be indicted for not dealing with that in the order because that——

Mr. Norman Hogg: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 144.

Division No. 39]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)


Barnett, Guy
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flannery, Martin


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Foster, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Freud, Clement


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Blair, Anthony
Godman, Dr Norman


Boyes, Roland
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hancock, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Canavan, Dennis
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Thomas
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Robert
Lamond, James


Clelland, David Gordon
Leighton, Ronald


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McCartney, Hugh


Corbett, Robin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Craigen, J. M.
Maclennan, Robert


Crowther, Stan
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Donald
Maxton, John


Dormand, Jack
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dubs, Alfred
Michie, William


Eadie, Alex
Mikardo, Ian






Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, C. (lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, David
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, William
Spearing, Nigel


Park, George
Stott, Roger


Parry, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin.
Woodall, Alec


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Ron Davies and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Ray Powell.


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Cash, William


Arnold, Tom
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cranborne, Viscount


Batiste, Spencer
Crouch, David


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Best, Keith
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dover, Den


Blackburn, John
Dunn, Robert


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Durant, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brinton, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Galley, Roy


Bruinvels, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buck, Sir Antony
Gow, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry





Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Antony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mather, Carol


Ground, Patrick
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Harris, David
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayes, J.
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayward, Robert
Murphy, Christopher


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony


Hirst, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Norris, Steven


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral, W)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powley, John


Key, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Raffan, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knowles, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lord, Michael
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waddington, David


Maclean, David John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


McQuarrie, Albert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Major, John



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Maples, John
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Marland, Paul
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would confirm that the two orders are being taken together.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if the two orders were debated separately—[Interruption.] I hear an echo saying that that might make for better expedition. I am not sure that I endorse that sentiment.
In that light, I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.
This is the first debate on the Act in which I have had the privilege of speaking as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and specifically on security issues. I should like to begin by restating clearly the Government's firm commitment to the eradication of terrorism and our determination to pursue that aim wherever it is appropriate. The news that the House will have heard today will be confirmation of our determination to pursue that aim as effectively as possible.
We are determined to do all that we can to create again in Northern Ireland the conditions for a peaceful, stable and prosperous Province in which all the people can pursue their political, economic and social goals free from fear.
The essence of our policy is to pursue suspected terrorists in respect of actual offences that they are believed to have committed, and to bring them to justice before the courts. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the police naturally take the lead in the implementation of that policy, with the Armed Forces providing appropriate support on request, where that remains necessary. That approach has achieved a substantial reduction in violence since the mid-1970s and continues to offer the best hope for the future. But terrorism and the threat of violence continue to cast a shadow over the political and economic life of the Province, so our efforts to stamp it out must continue with unremitting vigour.
When the Act was last debated in this House in June, my predecessor reported that terrorist violence during the first six months of 1985 was running at a similar level to that for the same period in 1984. He also stated that the RUC had borne the brunt of the violence. I am sorry to tell the House that this unhappy situation has continued. Although at 54 the total number of deaths during 1985 was 10 fewer than the previous year's total, the number of policemen and police women included in the figure has not been exceeded in any year since the present campaign of terrorism began. Twenty-three members of the RUC and RUC Reserve were murdered during 1985, and the first casualties, as the House will know, at the turn of the new year were also policemen. Many left behind young wives or husbands, and young families. I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to the dedication and courage displayed day in and day out by the members of the RUC and RUC Reserve, by the regular and UDR soldiers who so faithfully and unstintingly support them and one of whom was, sadly, so brutally murdered

last night. I would not exclude the courage and dedication of the men and women of the Northern Ireland Prison Service.
The small reduction in the number of deaths was paralleled by a more significant reduction in the number of terrorist incidents. That was down by more than 18 per cent. But welcome as that reduction is, it can give us no cause for complacency. There can never be an acceptable level of terrorism and violence; and the security forces, with the Government's fullest support, will spare no effort to lift the curse of terrorism and intimidation from all sections of the community.
At this moment it would also be appropriate to pay tribute to the work of the courts in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland judiciary deserves our warmest and fullest support. Over the years, in the face of intimidation and against the background of a peculiarly nasty and murderous terrorist campaign that has imposed un-precedented strains on the community it has dispensed justice firmly, fairly and impartially. It has successfully maintained the integrity of the judicial system in Northern Ireland.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: While the Secretary of State is paying tribute to the courts in Northern Ireland will he also pay tribute to the courts in Eire? There is a case in southern Ireland where it is assumed that Associated British Foods made a contribution of £1·5 million to the IRA. Is he aware of that case? In the event that it can be proven that that contribution was made does he intend to bring a case on the mainland against Associated British Foods and Fine Fare its subsidiary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Before the Secretary of State rises, I must remind him that our discussion must not range too widely.

Mr. King: I cannot comment on cases that are before courts in other jurisdictions. I pay tribute to any court seeking to dispense justice fairly and impartially in the face of terrorism and intimidation.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) may know General Order No. 7 in the IRA manual which means that those in the Republic face a different problem from those who are exposed to a peculiar threat in the Province where they are, themselves, a target of terrorism.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Since the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised the position of the courts in the Irish Republic—we would all wish to pay tribute to the judiciary there—would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remind the House that the Special Criminal Court sits without a jury? That is worth mentioning in view of the criticisms made of trial without jury in certain cases in Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: I recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's comment. It is true that there is a court that sits without a jury, which shows all too clearly both the problems that terrorism imposes not only north of the border but south, and the need to be able to respond to it in the most positive way.
The Government are anxious to take every possible step that can help to combat the evil of terrorism and it is against that background that I mentioned the Anglo-Irish


agreement, one of the prime considerations of which is to improve co-operation between ourselves and the Republic in the fight against terrorism. We are looking for increased co-ordination of security activities on both sides of the border. The Chief Constable of the RUC and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana have attended two of the first three meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference. As a first step a programme is being set in hand to improve co-operation and communication between the two forces. The conference is also looking at ways of simplifying the procedures for extradition between the two countries, and for mounting extra-territorial prosecutions.
One of the other benefits that we expect from the conference is that it will help us to try to remove any misunderstandings and misconceptions that may in the past have hindered the development of a better understanding of the importance of support for the security forces and a better cross-community support for their activities. Following the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the establishment of the Intergovernmental Conference, we look to the SDLP to give an early lead in encouraging full-hearted support from the minority community for the security forces. The RUC, as the front line defence for the whole community, deserves the support of the SDLP. It has certainly earned it, not only through the sacrifices to which I referred earlier and the tragic casualties that it has sustained, but through the professional, even-handed way in which it has carried out its duties.

Ms. Clare Short: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make this remark both in a recent conference in Oxford and tonight. Is he implying that in the past the SDLP has not given support to the RUC? If so, he should spell it out, and if not he should say so.

Mr. King: In the Province, the feeling is that the SDLP has qualified its support for the RUC. In the present situation, it is important to recognise that the RUC is entitled to wholehearted support. The RUC has shown clearly, not least in recent weeks, its determination to uphold the law and resist intimidation from whatever quarter it comes. That should be recognised by all the communities in the Province. I hope that this will be understood, because I recognise that extremists exist in both communities who are trying to undermine security in the Province and obstruct the agreement.
The enemies of peace and reconciliation have realised that the security benefits that the agreement can bring will pose a direct threat to them, so they may seek to undermine and wreck it at the start. The campaign of violence from the IRA ever since the signing of the agreement is the clearest sign of that. I make it clear to the IRA that that campaign will not succeed and that the Government will not be deterred. The Government will pursue greater and more effective security policies with increasing vigour. I make it clear that the agreement makes no change in the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government and the Chief Constable for security in Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable's independence is quite clear—in the discharge of his operational responsibilities he is and will remain answerable only to the law. By the same token, all

executive decisions about security issues in Northern Ireland will continue to be taken by the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Tony Benn: In the light of the Anglo-Irish agreement will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the order was discussed with Irish Ministers? Were they consulted, and do they support the agreement? In the light of what the Minister has just said we would expect the Government to state that any matters discussed by the House are discussed previously with Irish Ministers. If that is the case, what were their views on the continuation of the order?

Mr. King: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may not have been able to attend the debate when my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), made clear what our proposals would be for the initial stages in response to the Baker report. Those proposals were made in June. Tonight we are implementing those proposals that my predecessor put forward following the Baker report which investigated and considered the applications of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I will give a simple answer to the right hon. Gentleman, or he may make the amazing accusation that I am not answering his question. We had already reached decisions on the matter and we subsequently informed the Irish Government of what our actions would be.
In discharging my duties I shall of course consider the views expressed in this House by all parties, by Northern Irish Members of Parliament and by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I shall be willing also to listen to the views that may be expressed by the Irish Government through the Intergovernmental Conference. I relinquish none of my clear, distinct and sole responsibility for decisions in this matter on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. I will take my decisions in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom as a whole, in the knowledge that I remain fully accountable to this House.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Member give way?

Mr. King: I may be able to help the right hon. Gentleman. That is not always possible, but it may be on this occasion. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is and must be seen as temporary, exceptional legislation. It is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nation's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but it provides for departures, in certain circumstances from the normal procedures of British justice. My fervent hope is that it will soon become unnecessary. I wish that it were possible to allow the Act to lapse, but I am afraid that it is not, if we are to carry out successfully the security policies that I emphasised at the start of my speech. In his review of the operation of the Act, published in 1984, the late Sir George Baker endorsed this view, recording as his first substantial conclusion that there was only limited scope for amending the Act.
While the Act remains on the statute book I believe that it should continue to come under close parliamentary scrutiny, such as is provided for by this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney told the House last June, the Government intend, when amending the Act, to recommend that it have a maximum life of five years,


providing the occasion for major and detailed parliamentary scrutiny within a reasonable period. In considering the amendment of the Act, the Government's concern is to ensure that it provides only for the minimum necessary departures from normal law and procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, during the last renewal debate to which I referred, set out the Government's proposals for amending the Act. I intend to introduce legislation on those lines as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, and certainly within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Benn: rose——

Mr. King: It is important that I should conclude this part of my remarks.
In the meantime, we have laid an order under section 30 of the Act which will widen the discretion of the Attorney-General to certify in respect of particular cases that offences should not be treated as scheduled offences. The implication of that, as hon. Members will be aware, is that they will be eligible and available for jury trial. That is, generally, along the lines proposed by Sir George Baker, and when we come to the amendments that I shall move when we debate the later order that by agreement we have decided to debate as a separate instrument, we shall discuss those matters.

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister try to answer the questions that I asked? He referred to a statement that was made in June, which was before the Anglo-Irish agreement was reached, so that the agreement represented a change. He then said that the Irish Government had been notified. They do not now have to he notified because they know what the business is from studying last Thursday's statement. My question—if he will lift his eyes from his text for a moment—was specific. Were they consulted, was the matter put on the agenda of the last inter-governmental conference, did they give a view, and, if they did, what was that view? In view of the new statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made, will he say whether the Irish Government will be consulted about the legislation to amend the Act before he introduces it in this House?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman is losing some of the effortless charm that I normally expect from him.

Mr. Benn: All that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is answer the question.

Mr. King: I made it clear that the Government's decisions were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney in June. They had not been previously discussed with the Government of the Irish Republic. These matters were on the record and, whether or not they were aware of them, we informed them that we would be tabling these orders, so they were aware of them. They were not the subject of negotiation and discussion because they had already been announced and had been tabled in this House, as I recall, before the signing of the agreement.

Mr. Benn: indicated dissent.

Mr. King: The right hon. Member for hesterfield (Mr. Benn) keeps shaking his head in dissent. I do not know why he still cannot understand the point that I have made.
I have one more question of the right hon. Gentleman's to answer, but if I fail to answer anything else, he can rise

and tell me. He asked whether, if there were any further proposals in respect of the Act, they would be discussed. The answer is yes, in the same way as they would be discussed with anybody else who had views to advance. We are more than ready to listen to views. I am amazed that any Opposition Member should think it outrageous that we should discuss provisions of this kind as widely as possible. As the right hon. Gentleman has stopped shaking his head, I trust that he feels that I have answered all his questions.

Mr. Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman failed to answer my first question, I will ask it again. Was there specific consultation with the Irish Government after the Anglo-Irish agreement? Secondly, in view of his statement now that consulting the Irish Government is just part of listening to everybody, will he say whether the new legislation in draft that he has promised to present to the House will be put on the agenda of the conference between the Irish and British Ministers? [Interruption.] Will it be put on the agenda for discussion with the Irish Government before the right hon. Gentleman brings the legislation to the House of Commons? Will he now answer those questions?

Mr. King: The answer is yes. I always respect the natural courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman and I do not want to embarrass him, but if I have to answer the question for a third time and if that helps to clear up any misunderstanding, then I will do so. The answer to his first question about whether the amendment order was discussed is no, because it was already made clear that it was announced in the House in June. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman was here for that debate. I am sure that if he was not, it was for a perfectly understandable reason. It was announced to the House in June and therefore what we proposed to do was on the record. The Irish Government were subsequently informed. The orders were laid.
Bearing in mind his close attention to parliamentary matters, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows the orders were laid before the Anglo-Irish agreement was even signed. I am sure the Irish Government were informed courteously of what was happening. I have great respect for the Irish Government and I guess they already knew these matters were before the House of Commons.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked if further matters of this kind would be discussed and could they be considered in the Anglo-Irish conference. The answer to that is yes, and I have said that absolutely categorically. The right hon. Gentleman may be under the impression that matters that come before the Anglo-Irish conference may be discussed there and that nobody else is allowed any insight into what is taking place. I have made it quite clear that on matters of this importance others can contribute as well.

Mr. Ian Gow: I have been listening with close attention to my right hon. Friend, as indeed have all hon. Members. Could he remind us, as it is not clear from the draft instrument now before the House, on what date it was laid before Parliament?

Mr. King: I believe it was early November, 11 November.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I have given way many times to hon. Members, and other hon. Members want to take part. The continuance order that is before the House reflects the view, my view, shared by Sir George Baker, that the Act contains provisions which are necessary in the fight against terrorism, to the eradication of which the Government remains totally committed. The powers must, regrettably for the reasons that I gave, be preserved for a further period. The House will see when we reach the amendment order that while we recognise and believe it is necessary to maintain the Act, we are determined to look carefully at it to see if we can find ways in which changes could be made, where possible, without putting at risk in any unacceptable way the lives and welfare of the people of Northern Ireland, and we are determined to wage as effectively as we can the battle fight against terrorism.

Mr. Peter Archer: Twice a year the House debates an order in the terms of the order which is before us today. That has been happening for many years and those of us who took part in the earlier debates have developed a feeling of déjà vue. Time and again the Opposition have deployed their arguments and not only have the Government disagreed with us—we can understand that—but they have never engaged in the debate. They never offered any sign of comprehending what we were saying. Remembering how the Scots fought the battle of Bannockburn, I should like to try again, particularly as I shall be trying with a new Secretary of State; particularly because I sense that in some respects this debate is different; and particularly because the right hon. Gentleman has said this subject may be discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I refrain from repeating at length all that I have said on previous occasions.
I appreciate that many demands are made upon the Secretary of State's time, but I wonder whether I may prevail upon him to read three contributions that I made to previous debates. It will enable me to spare the House a repetition of them. Let me at least give the references to him. On 5 July 1984 I traced the history of these debates from July 1980 when my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) expressed from this Dispatch Box the Opposition's anxiety about this Act. On 20 December 1984, in the debate on the Baker report, I tried to set out in detail our concern about the Act and our reactions to the report. On 20 June 1985 I sought to indicate the issues to which the Government's approach to the Act had given rise.
Mine was not a lone voice. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has pursued the theme more than once. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were saying it long before I was. But if I may be permitted an argument by reference, it will enable me to be the briefer tonight.
There is one proposition that I must repeat because, however often I say it, there are those who persist in misunderstanding our argument and who seem determined to misapprehend the issue. The issue is not whether we are opposed to lawlessness and violence, whether we have any sympathy with the men of violence, or whether we care about the victims of violence. I am happy to compare my record in denouncing lawlessness and violence in any context with the record of those who persist in

misrepresenting us. I am rather less selective in my condemnation than they are. But that is not the issue. The issue is not whether we appreciate the difficulties of those who are charged with enforcing law and order. They have a thankless charge and they are entitled to ask that we should have their difficulties in mind when we debate these matters. We on these Benches share the horror of the Secretary of State at the loss of the life of a police officer last night.
The police in particular have been called on over the last few weeks to deal with situations not of their own making and they have responded with a degree of restraint and objectivity which deserves to be recognised. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment are none of them perfect. To suggest that they never fall below the standard of perfection would be as silly as to say that they are all part of some dishonest conspiracy, but it is no reflection upon them to insist that they cannot be better than the system they are called upon to administer.
There are two issues before the House. The first is whether there has been an erosion of civil liberties which may endanger those very values and that very way of life that our security policy purports to defend. When the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the first edition of the present Act, was being debated as a Bill everybody recognised that whatever the necessity for it may have been it was a wholly exceptional measure—as, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman reminded us tonight. It introduced a range of provisions which were wholly exceptional in character. That appreciation was reflected in the title of the Bill. These were emergency powers. It was reflected in the provision for review by the House at six-monthly intervals. It was reflected in the speech of the then Secretary of State, Lord Whitelaw, who said:
It is the Government's intention that none of the provisions of the Bill, if it is passed, should continue in force a moment longer than it is needed."—[Official Report, 17 April, 1983; Vol. 855, c. 278.]
It was reflected in the speech of the then Attorney-General, now Lord Rawlinson, who called it draconian.
That was more than 12 years ago. Since then it has become a standard, everyday part of prodecure, a part of everyday life in Northern Ireland. A whole generation of police officers and a whole generation of lawyers has matured with the emergency provisions Act as an accepted part of life. There are lawyers of 12 years' standing, quite senior practitioners, who have known nothing else in their professional lives.

Ms. Clare Short: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there have been special powers ever since Ireland was partitioned and ever since that unhealthy state was created? There have been distortions of normal justice. There has not been a system of normal justice as we expect it in the rest of Britain. That is a sign and a representation of the political problems that underpin the partitioned state of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right. I seem to recollect that a South African Minister of Justice, commenting on the original emergency provisions Act, said that he would be prepared to forgo all the powers at his disposal for section 1 alone of that Act. There was a time, arising, I think, from Human Rights Year in 1968, when it looked as though there might be a hope of breaking away from all this. Yet, as my hon. Friend says, it remains a normal part of administration in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman entirely treat Sir George Baker's recommendations as nonsense? That is the gist of the speech that he is making at the moment. Sir George Baker, after the very distinguished inquiries that he made—I was one who appeared before him, and I dare say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman also appeared before him—came to a completely different conclusion. Does he utterly reject the Baker report?

Mr. Archer: It is true that I gave evidence to Sir George Baker, both in writing and orally. My complaint is that it is the Government who treat a substantial part of the Baker report as nonsense.

Mr. Gow: rose——

Mr. Archer: If I may answer one question at a time, I will then happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
One of the unfortunate aspects of Sir George's terms of reference was that he was required to accept that a measure of emergency legislation was necessary, so his terms of reference prescribed the conclusions which he was to reach.

Mr. Gow: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is a characteristically fair Member of the House. Is it not the case that the parent Act under which this draft statutory instrument is made was introduced into the House by the Labour Government of which his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and he were members? We are talking now about approving a statutory instrument which is being made under an Act of 1978.

Mr. Archer: If the hon. Gentleman means the second edition of the 1978 Act, that is true. I am coming to that. I fully recognise what happened in the past and I am not even suggesting that we were necessarily wrong at that time. If he will allow me to make my speech, I shall try to answer his point.
A whole generation of lawyers have passed their professional lives in Northern Ireland with this as a normal part of their background, and knowing nothing else. Worse, a whole generation of lay people have grown to adulthood who, when they think of policing and of the law, think of the powers that we are discussing today. We, heaven forgive us—it is obvious from tonight's debate—have become inured to it. It no longer seems exceptional. We no longer use the word "draconian"; and, of course, because in the Northern Ireland context it has a ring of familiarity we are less shocked when its spawn appears in Great Britain. This week we have seen in the Roskill report one more proposal for paring away the right to trial by jury, and it does not smite us with the impact that such a proposal would have made 12 years ago. Quite well-informed people say to me, "Well, they don't have a jury system in Northern Ireland, do they?" They are wrong; it is a total misapprehension, yet it is all part of a perception which has spread over a very long period but especially over the past 12 years.
The second issue before the House is whether the measures which have been adopted to maintain law and order and preserve security are counter-productive, and whether they make the task of the police and of the courts harder. Probably the greatest single factor in securing observance of the law is a recognition among local communities that the law is fair and that it protects them

from injustice. The greatest deterrent for a potential lawbreaker is the disapproval of his peer group because it believes that the law should be observed. But wherever a young person is stopped by a police officer in circumstances where he believes he is being victimised, wherever a family sees one of its members charged with an offence on what it sees as unconvincing evidence, and detained in custody awaiting trial for a long period the whole bedrock of public confidence and support on which the law rests is undermined.
These are the issues which we urge on the Government time and time again, with no indication that we are getting through; and they are the issues which I seek again to place before the House tonight.
I will not rehearse our anxieties at length today. In the past we have discussed the admissibility of confession evidence under section 8(2) in circumstances where that evidence would not be admitted in any other part of the United Kingdom. We have discussed the fact that section 12 still provides the Secretary of State with the power to detain without trial, although it has not been used since 1975. We have discussed the power to arrest without warrant under section 11 which was clearly intended simply as a prelude to detention under section 12, which is no longer used. I note that today three American girls were arrested whose activities are said to consist of making a film about joy riding. It would not be right for me to say more because I know no more about the facts, but perhaps the Minister could tell us more about that tonight.
It is understandable that when an arrest is made it is perceived as referring back to the power in section 11, and that people ask why that power is needed when there are other powers in other legislation, and when section 1 I was never intended for that purpose. We have discussed the delays in bringing cases to trial, and the restricted right to bail under the Act. Sir George Baker made representations about all those matters because he was troubled about the position.
We make no secret of the fact that we were disappointed by the Baker report and hoped to see more radical recommendations, but on those matters Sir George Baker expressed himself to be unhappy. His review was announced by the then Secretary of State on 30 June 1982. It was not until 5 April 1983 that Sir George Baker's appointment to undertake it was made known. He reported in March 1984, and here we are in 1986 with no idea when we may expect the legislation to implement the representations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked a perfectly relevant question: what consultations had taken place or were expected to take place under the procedures in the new intergovernmental agreement? The debate is to be followed by the introduction of an order to amend the Act. I accept that that was announced before the intergovernmental agreement, and could not have been discussed under those procedures. We welcome that amendment as a fish in a desert welcomes a solitary raindrop. but it does not begin to dispose of our anxieties about the Act. It is not even a significant move towards implementing the report. If I say a word about it now, it will enable me to invite the Secretary of State to think about what is probably the central issue relating to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—the system of trial without jury. It will have the additional advantage of enabling me to keep my speech on the next debate brief.
On previous occasions I have tried to remind the House of the arguments which persuaded Lord Diplock to make the original recommendation. He thought that juries would be subject to intimidation, but accepted that he had no evidence to support that proposition. No member of the Diplock commission except Lord Diplock even felt it necessary to visit Northern Ireland, and his meetings there appear to have been restricted to members of the security forces on the ground. The argument advanced by the commission which dominated the debates on the Bill in 1973 was that prejudiced juries were likely to acquit people who should be convicted.

Ms. Clare Short: They were Unionists.

Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend has anticipated me. At that time, before the Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, the property qualification ensured that juries were predominantly Unionist. So the problem was about Unionist juries acquitting Protestant paramilitaries. Those debates belong to a different world from that of today. The whole argument was openly and avowedly a means of increasing the conviction rate.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not overlooked the fact that the conclusions of the Diplock commission were considered and upheld by the committee of Lord Gardiner, the former Labour Lord Chancellor, in 1975.

Mr. Archer: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I was coming to the events following the 1973 Act. I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to blacken the record of the Labour party, but I am quite prepared to put our record against his personal record.
I come now to the question that I have been asked. In 1973 we on these Benches said that we were not persuaded by those arguments. But, when the provision was on the statute book, it seemed sensible to see how it worked. For some years it did not appear to give rise to any serious anxieties. Perhaps that was precisely because it did not seem to be achieving its stated purpose of increasing the conviction rate.
More recently, three factors have emerged which have compelled us to look at it again. First, there has been a significant fall in the acquittal rate in Diplock trials. In 1973 it was 57 per cent. By 1979 it had fallen to 35 per cent. In 1981 it was 33 per cent. That was happening at a time when the acquittal rate in jury trials in Northern Ireland had increased. That was bound to raise the question whether judges were becoming case-hardened. That is not a criticism of the judiciary. It is a danger which they fully recognise themselves, and they expressed it to Sir George Baker. It is the very reason why we in the United Kingdom have for hundreds of years recognised the value of jury trials.
Secondly, it has become apparent that a system which is avowedly designed to deal with offences associated with terrorism was being used in cases which clearly had no connection with terrorism. Listing the offences which are sometimes committed for political reasons and providing that anyone accused of any of those offences should be tried under this procedure clearly casts the net too wide. We are all familiar with the study carried out by Mr.

Dermott Walsh for the Cobden Trust which concluded that 40 per cent. of those convicted under the Diplock procedure had no connection with terrorism.
Thirdly, over the last few years there has emerged the phenomenon known as the supergrass. Again I will not repeat today what I have said on other occasions about the problems of supergrass trials, but they have inevitably been associated with the Diplock procedure, because it is the Diplock procedure which is in issue, and they have rendered it more urgent that we should look at it again.
Various proposals have been made as to what the Government might do. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights suggested making a significant reduction in the number of scheduled offences and enlarging the powers of the Attorney-General to certify out, which is what is being proposed tonight. Sir George Baker recommended that the Attorney-General should have a much wider discretion to certify out. There have been proposals to replace the single judge with a panel of three judges, possibly one of them chosen from the Republic. One suggestion, which I confess I find attractive but which was rejected by the Secretary of State's predecessor last June, is the suggestion made by Sir George Baker in paragraph 151 for what has been called "contingent jury trial". He said:
It would be possible to provide for the judge, if he is satisfied that there has been any attempt to intimidate, harass or otherwise interfere with the jury, amounting to an interference with the course of justice, to discharge the jury and continue the trial himself or direct that it is to be heard by another judge sitting alone.
That would at least enable us to begin every trial with a jury. He went on to point out that such a provision might itself discourage attempts at intimidation.
There really is a need for the Government to address themselves to all this discussion and all these proposals.
We ought to be told their thinking in much greater detail than we have been told it up to now, and perhaps we ought to have a further debate on the subject devoted specifically to the non-jury trials.
What the Government have done in the order which is to be discussed in the next debate is to propose a minor extension in the number of offences where the Attorney-General is to have a discretion to certify out. Clearly it is a move in the right direction, although it could not by itself begin to persuade us to support the renewal of the law in its present form. But the order misses the mark.
We are indebted to the National Council for Civil Liberties for information which illuminates that figure of 40 per cent.—the proportion of Diplock cases which, as Mr. Dermott Walsh found, had no connection with terrorism. The majority of them were connected with robbery involving real or imitation firearms. The offences are robbery, aggravated burglary and the possession of firearms while committing other offences.
To be technical, the offences which should have been in the order and are missing are offences under sections 8 and 10 of the Theft Act and articles 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the firearms order. If the Government had included those in the order, we should have been happier that they were making substantial inroads on these problems. These are the offences where frequently there is no connection with terrorism and so no justification for the fears which led to the passing of the Act. The new order fails to deal with those offences and they remain excluded from the Attorney-General's power to certify out.
That does not mean that the Opposition have any sympathy with armed robbery. All the offences which I listed are serious, but for that very reason it is important to ensure that people are not convicted of them unless they are found, to the community's satisfaction, to be guilty. We do not combat lawlessness from political or other motives by risking convicting the wrong people. Unless there is good reason to deny jury trial to people accused of such offences, they should have the same right to jury trial as anyone else accused elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The provision for a six-monthly review of the Act was included so that the House could address itself to such matters from time to time and to review each of the provisions against the background of what is known at that time. It is an obligation which we have tried to take seriously. As the Secretary of State said, it might now be subject to discussions in the Intergovernmental Conference. But it is no safeguard unless the Government listen to what is said. They must at least engage in the debate. We have seen no sign that the Government are listening, and that compels us to divide the House.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: When the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and I had an exchange about the Baker report, he said that Sir George was unhappy about the emergency powers in Northern Ireland. Everyone in the House is unhappy about the emergency powers and about anything which infringes human and civil rights. The greatest human right is the right to be alive.
Sir George was not circumscribed by his terms of reference when he came to his conclusions. He certainly was not circumscribed when he said in paragraph 32 of the report:
I have become increasingly more convinced that any provisions of the EPA which may save even one life or bring one guilty terrorist to conviction and sentence should be retained until the paramilitary forces forswear terrorism unless there is a powerful convincing reason for repeal or amendment.
Sir George did not find any such convincing reason for repeal or amendment.
I find the Opposition's attitude not that of an alternative Government who might become responsible for the Goverment of Northern Ireland, or a responsible party. Their position is indefensible, save by excuse of ignorance of the brutal and bloody realities of life in troubled Ireland. I say Ireland because, as I ventured to remark during the Secretary of State's speech, there exist in Ireland not only Diplock courts, but the special criminal court.
There is a difference. The difference is that the special criminal court in the South is a court of three judges but no jury. It is frequently pointed out that the Diplock courts have no jury and are presided over by a single judge. There is a difficulty here. If it is desirable—I believe it is—to add to the single judge assessors of some kind, whether they be judges, resident magistrates or others, the difficulty is that there are none willing to come forward from the Northern Ireland Bar to accept the wish of the Lord Chancellor that they become judges. I understand that the reason is the peculiar risks to which judges are subjected in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend referred to the murder of judges and magistrates, notably Catholic judges and magistrates, in the Province.

Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is highly satisfactory that a Catholic has recently accepted nomination to this court? Is that not correct?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is correct, and I do not believe that it arises in any way from the Anglo-Irish agreement. I am delighted that this courageous person has come forward to take up that dangerous task. It is still difficult to find barristers who are willing to serve. It is the risk of murder and intimidation of judges and magistrates and jurors that made the Diplock courts regrettably necessary. I repeat regrettably necessary—and I warmly welcome the second order that we are to consider.
I spoke of the realities of life in troubled Ireland. In The Times of 4 January the first leading article said:
the Hillsborough Agreement can only work if Dublin ministers at the intergovernmental conference can combine their role as representatives"—
I quarrel with this phrase, but I shall not go into that now—
of the north's minority Catholic population with support for properly conducted security operations.
What the House and many in Northern Ireland are looking for are tangible results from the new arrangement with the Republic in terms of improved cross-border security.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: This is a short debate and I want to give other hon. members a chance to speak. We have come a long way since 1962 when Mr. Sean Lemass so crushed and harried the IRA that, in the words of one of the historians of the Irish Republican Army, he destroyed
the hopes of a generation".
The present Fine Gael Government in Dublin are weaker than that Fianna Fail Government. Even so, the present Taoiseach expressed the intention, as recorded in the communiqué—it is not in the agreement—after the Hillsborough meeting that the Government of the Irish Republic intended to adhere to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to say whether any steps have been taken in that regard. We still need a change in the extradition law. Progress in that direction might be of comfort to the estranged majority and the frightened minority in Northern Ireland today.

Mr. Tony Benn: This is a regular process of renewal which the House has had many times. The difference is that this is the first time since the Anglo-Irish agreement. That is why I put some questions to the Secretary of State.
There was no specific consultation where everyone would have expected it. The Irish Government, for example, have expressed views on the super-grass trials. The Irish Government apparently gave no view on this order, which may be a subject of interest in Dublin. As for the future, there is no exclusive relationship in any way with the Irish Government. As the Secretary of State said, anyone can come in. The intergovernmental ministerial conference will, therefore, have no special role. Continuing the order—even with some amendments—is a continuation of the present policy.
I want to take these events to underline why the policy that the Government are following will fail. That policy was intended to do four wholly incompatible things. First,


it was intended to de-fuse opposition in the Republic by involving its Ministers. Secondly, it was intended to isolate the Republicans in the North by making them look as though they alone stood out against the Anglo-Irish agreement. Thirdly, it was intended to reassure the Loyalists. Of course, they are not here, because they are busy campaigning against the policy anyway. [Interruption.] We do not know the outcome, but at least it is unlikely that they will return to the House without majorities, showing that opinion in Northern Ireland is not, despite their Loyalist protestations, as much in favour of United Kingdom parliamentary control as they claim. Fourthly, the Government's policy was intended to bring in the Common Market and the Americans with cash and endorsement—there were also defence overtones—by persuading them that it presented a real break.
With the agreement, the Government have tried to internationalise the status quo. The order proves this. No one could have doubled that after the Secretary of State, in his first speech after appointment, said that, as far as he was concerned, nothing would ever change. I suspect that there will be growing disillusionment with the agreement. The order will result in the first stage of that disillusionment among significant groups. Those who put their faith in the agreement will discover that what they have actually endorsed is an official Anglo-Irish licence for the continuation of partition and British repression in Northern Ireland, which will solve nothing.
The Anglo-Irish agreement made a fundamental change in the relationships between Britain and the North. The by-elections are occurring because some people have seen that, when one licenses a foreign Government to share responsibility with a part of the so-called United Kingdom, there is a fundamental change. There has been a fundamental change, but no solution to the problem.
The war will continue. The Diplock courts will continue. The super-grass trials will continue, despite the protests from Dublin. The strip searches and the plastic bullets will continue. This policy of the Secretary of State will fail, as all the others have failed. Reference has been made to the Labour Government. I could go back further, to when I was in the Cabinet in August 1969 and we sent the troops in. We were told that that would solve the problem. We were told that Sunningdale and direct rule would solve the problem. We were told that power sharing would solve the problem.
People will be suspicious of tonight's meticulous textual address by the Secretary of State because they have heard it all before. The Secretary of State may not like the change, but when it comes, the Government will be seen to have begun the process by recognising—although that does not entitle us to support the agreement which will fail like everything else—that the United Kingdom does not have an exclusive right to govern Northern Ireland.
In joining my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and voting against the other, I think that those in the Republic and in the North who study this debate can draw a certain conclusion about it and perhaps even some comfort from it.

Mr. Ian Gow: It is a tragedy that the Labour party intends to divide the House on this statutory instrument. I warmly approve of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and of the order.
This is a short debate, and I know that hon. Gentlemen want to participate——

Ms. Clare Short: What about me?

Mr. Gow: And hon. Ladies, too. I shall, therefore keep my remarks short.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly said that it was the Government's policy to pursue the campaign against terrorism in Northern Ireland with unremitting vigour. My right hon. Friend also referred to the Anglo-Irish agreement of 15 November. It is of first importance, as my right hon. Friend acknowledges, that the promise of the increased co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic of Ireland should become a reality so that a more effective campaign may be waged by both Governments and the security forces of both Governments against terrorism throughout the island of Ireland.
I want to reinforce the question that was put to my right hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). Not, alas, in the treaty—I wish that it were in the treaty—but in the joint communiqué that was issued on 15 November the Prime Minister of the Republic gave notice of the intention of the Government of the Republic
to accede
these are the exact words—
as soon as possible to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.

Ms. Clare Short: Is this in order?

Mr. Gow: It certainly is in order. I point out to the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend referred in his speech to the benefits which he believed would flow from the agreement on co-operation.
The question that I want to put to my right hon. Friend or to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, if he is to reply, is what, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, was meant by the words "as soon as possible" when in the joint communiqué, the Taoiseach gave that undertaking about the accession of the Republic to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism? It would be of the greatest importance if "as soon as possible" really meant in the very near future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I say to hon. Members that the Front Bench would like to catch my eye at half past eleven.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Some of us have opposed the various pieces of legislation on the prevention of terrorism since their inception for the very reason that the Secretary of State, when he became Secretary of State, was fatuous enough to say that Northern Ireland would be there for ever. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) implied, if the border is there for ever this legislation will be in force for ever because it is the border that led to the legislation. We go through this melancholy six-monthly ritual. Some of us have never missed it throughout the years, unlike the Secretary of State who is new to it.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is virtually unamended. The Government have no intention of amending it. It is draconian and unjust on a grand scale, and it solves nothing. It actually deepens and intensifies the crisis in Northern Ireland. There was a time when some of us got no help from the Labour Government. In the bi-partisan years, they were as bad as the Tories and we had to struggle against them as well. Now officially the Labour Front Bench is with us, although the vote has not increased very much.
When Sir George Baker made his report, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, he could not make a proper report. He began with a conclusion; it came from the terms of reference, which began as follows:
Accepting that temporary emergency powers are necessary to combat sustained terrorist violence".
What could he do with that? All he could do was produce a draconian report on a draconian Act. I have heard people praising that report. I was appalled at it because it did not do anything to help.
The Government did not follow the ritual he went through. Out of 72 or 74 recommendations they paid slight attention to two, I think. When there are three judges instead of one, that merely means that there are three case-hardened types dealing with a case instead of one. If there are only 10 judges in Northern Ireland they must be case hardened. How could they be anything else? They would be inhuman if they were not. That is the reality. There is no justice in Northern Ireland to do with anything concerned with what is called terrorism.
Let us be quite clear about this—it means long periods of detention without charge, admission of involuntary confessions in court and uncorroborated evidence from supergrasses. A year ago I led a delegation to Northern Ireland, which it split into two halves. Half went to Long Kesh and the other to visit the women in South Armagh. We spoke to all 34 women, some of whom had been there for two years without trial. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether they have now been there for three years without trial? Is that the sort of justice that we are meting out in Northern Ireland? I want to know. That is the sort of behaviour that intensifies the conflict and makes people fight against a draconian regime.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in answer to his question. Perhaps he will answer my question. What does he mean by his assertion that there is no justice in a Northern Ireland court hearing a terrorist case? How does he equate that assertion with the fact that over the years, and certainly today, the rate of acquittal in Diplock courts is within 1 or 2 per cent. of the rate of acquittal in jury trials?

Mr. Flannery: The reality is that all sorts of people are not getting a proper trial because of the position in Northern Ireland. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me how a convicted murderer, who has committed crimes of terrorism and already been convicted of perjury, can go into court—as one did recently, I think that it was Kirkpatrick—and denounce 27 people, without corroborated evidence, who were then gaoled for life? That is perhaps what the hon. and learned Gentleman calls justice, but I believe that many people, especially young men, are stirred to join the IRA when they see the travesty of justice in Northern Ireland.

The Solicitor-General: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is no difference between the law of admissibility of uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice in Northern Ireland and that in the law in England and Wales? If he does recognise that, perhaps he will acknowledge it.

Mr. Flannery: I say with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he can enmesh me in a web of lawyer-like talk if he wishes, but the reality is that there is a lack of justice in Northern Ireland, as there always has been as long as there has been occupation of any part of Ireland. He can quote whatever he wants from the law books, but that is the reality.
The Act hovers like a rain cloud over the people of the minority Catholic community in Northern Ireland. It constantly has them in turmoil. It solves none of the problems that it was intended to solve. I shall cite two aspects, which I have mentioned already but which are worth repeating. First, on the question of detention without charge, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell me what has happened to the women in South Armagh. Are they still being dragged out—[Interruption.] Yes, it is true. We went over the track that they take after they have been strip searched once a week. We discovered that not all the strip searches were being recorded in the book. The Secretary of State may smile about these serious issues, but they are the issues with which we must deal.
This appalling Act should be taken off the statute book. It does nothing to solve the problems. Ireland under British occupation, especially Northern Ireland, has never been ruled without military control over the people and a total lack of democracy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West mentioned property qualification, and it is only one aspect. There are many people on the Tory benches who I have watched smiling and laughing as those points have been put to them. There is no hope for Northern Ireland from those people. The only hope for peace in Northern Ireland is for the election of a Labour Government and the abolition of the border. There is no hope unless that happens.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I should like to put a question to the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). If he were the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, would he be recommending to the House tonight that we should reintroduce jury trials for all terrorist charges? Could he put that to the House in all seriousness? In my worst moments, I wake up at about 3 o'clock in the morning and dream that I am the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in an alliance Government. That will not happen, not because an alliance Government will not be in power next time, but because I shall not be there. I understand that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West is saying from the Opposition Front Bench that he would do away with the Diplock courts and have a jury trial for all cases.
The reason why I support the renewal of the legislation is that I realise that it is early days in the life of the Anglo Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It has been in operation for only about six weeks, and I am prepared to recommend further patience to my colleagues in connection with the renewal of the order.
I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State about tabling new legislation in the life of this Parliament. That


should be taken on board. It is with great reluctance that we accept the impossibility at this time of providing a jury trial for terrorist offences. There is no foolproof method of safeguarding the anonimity of jurors and therefore avoiding intimidation. As I understand it, they have to give their names and addresses. If the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West can say that he will put those people's lives at risk, I cannot agree with him.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that the official position of the once great radical Liberal party is that in one part of the United Kingdom there should be a standard of so-called justice which is grossly inferior to the standards of justice that prevail elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ross: Of course I am not saying that. I remind the hon. Member of the judges who have lost their lives and been maimed trying to carry our justice in Northern Ireland. He may be prepared to put those lives at risk, but I am not.

Ms. Clare Short: Intern them.

Mr. Ross: No, I shall not intern them. Our joint report of July 1985 contained words to that effect and was accepted by both the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party at their assemblies this autumn.
I agree with much of what has been said by Opposition Members. We also think that it should be possible to deschedule cases where there is no apparent connection with serious terrorist offences. The accused should have the right to apply to the court to have his or her individual case descheduled, with the right to appeal to a higher court. The amendment seems to leave everything in the hands of the Attorney-General. I do not accept that.
I think that there should be jury trials unless a challenge is made. We would like to see a move to three judges. I should like to see Garret FitzGerald's suggestion followed up, so that we swap judges between the North and the South. I want to see the use of tape recorded interviews as evidence and a limit on the number of defendants in any one supergrass trial. That was a Baker recommendation. He recommended a maximum of 20, we recommend six.
Above all, new legislation should now be drafted, the provisions of which would be acceptable and applicable to both the North and the South. We regard that as an important step towards the harmonisation of British and Irish law and practice in the fight against terrorism.
I refer to the time spent on remand, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). In 1983 the average time spent on remand was 322 days. That is outrageous, and we must move to the Scottish practice of 110 days as quickly as possible. Above all, a Bill of Rights is needed in the Province, but we must leave that issue to the more persuasive powers of Lord Scarman.

Mr. Stuart Bell: We welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), a Liberal Member. He asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) what a future Labour Government would do. He went on to make a series of recommendations on the legislation that we are debating. He even went so far as to say that entirely

new legislation should be drafted. A future Labour Government would have no difficulty in pronouncing that they would move towards jury trials as quickly as they could in the context of the situation in Northern Ireland. We make no bones about that commitment.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) fell into the same trap. He spent the first part of his speech criticising Labour policies, and the second part saying that there should be three judges in the Diplock courts, resident magistrates or assessors. Therefore, it is clear that there is an all-round agreement in the House that there is something wrong with this legislation, and that it should be looked at with care. That is what the Labour party is doing, and is therefore rendering the House of Commons and the people of Northern Ireland a service in opposing the legislation.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight is joining the Tories in his acceptance of TINA—there is no alternative. He seems to be saying that in this, as in other legislation, nothing else can be done. Our party is the one being creative in this matter of Northern Ireland. We are looking seriously at the Diplock courts, and are constantly pushing and prodding the Government to move towards the Baker report. Tonight, two of the report's 72 recommendations are being implemented, and the Secretary of State has said, as did his predecessor in June, that there would be implementation of the Baker recommendations during the lifetime of this Parliament. That commitment was given as a result of the pressing and prodding of the Labour Opposition, and tonight's commitment was given as the result of the same pressure. The Labour party is the effective Opposition in the Chamber in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and of justice.
We are grateful for the presence of the Solicitor-General. It must be a great relief to him to come to our debate after the other matters with which he has had to deal over the past few weeks.

Mr. Gow: rose——

Mr. Bell: I have only three minutes to make my speech, so, with the utmost respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall not give way.
We are grateful to the Solicitor-General because he has put into the context of the law the admissibility of evidence. We are saying that there is something wrong with a Diplock court with a single judge linked to a trial where one witness is able to give uncorroborated evidence. That is the great problem, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West said.
The situation has changed since 1973 because of the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness before a single judge, who has not only to establish what the law is, but to establish what the facts are. He must then do the work of 12 good men—and women—true, in place of the jury. A judge in a Diplock court does the work of 13 people.
For all the reasons that I have given, we feel an obligation to divide the House. The Under-Secretary said last year that the legislation was:
in the interests of security, and indeed justice".—[Official Report, 20 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 651.]
That is the curious dichotomy of this legislation. It is supposed to be used for justice, but it is used for security. That is where the ambivalence, the erosion of civil rights, the uneasiness of the people of Northern Ireland come in, and where there is an addition to the sense of alienation.
That is why this legislation is an obstacle to bringing the two communities together. We have no conscience about drawing the attention of the public of Northern Ireland and that of Great Britain to the curious inadequacies of the current legislation. The people of Northern Ireland put up with a system and administration of justice that we in Great Britain would not tolerate.
I was in a Diplock court during a supergrass trial when Mr. Kirkpatrick was the witness. I had the uncanny feeling that I was being cast back a century or so to the Chancery courts of old. There was a plethora of lawyers and security guards and dotted around the court were the accused, none of whom, as far as I could ascertain, could hear a word of what was being said. Although their future was at stake, they had to fall back to chattering among themselves while their relatives and families looked on haplessly behind bullet-proof glass, being unable to follow the proceedings.
It is not surprising that there are those of us who are aghast at the judgments that are reached and the verdicts that are entered in the Diplock courts. We have a sense of indignation that the current legislation remains on the statute book. I have no hesitation in commending my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on the issue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): In the few minutes that remain of the debate, I wish to deal with a number of issues that have been raised.
First, I take up the opening remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who accused us of not being prepared to enter into an argument. I have about five minutes in which to reply and it will be difficult to address the arguments in depth, but I can assure him that successive Ministers—Secretaries of State and others bearing responsibility for Northern Ireland—have concerned themselves with the arguments and worried deeply about whether they had the balance right. They have had to move away from the practice of the law on this side of the water in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, but only to the minimum degree that is necessary to ensure the life, the security and the safety of the general public within Northern Ireland. We have worried about it ourselves and have sought the best advice available to us to ensure that we have the balance right.
I shall refer to three matters that are raised by Sir George Baker in the opening part of his report. In paragraph 50, he stated:
I am driven to the sad but inescapable conclusion that despite the undoubted improvement and optimism which I noted during last summer … there is little room for manoeuvre
in amending the legislation. He went on to make a point that I wish had been taken up by one or two of those who have contributed to the debate. At the end of paragraph 50, he said:
The remedy is squarely in the hands of those who say they are waging war. Let them forswear violence and respect the right to live.
If that were done, we would not need emergency provisions in Northern Ireland. Sir George concluded the opening part of his report in paragraph 51 by asking:
'Is it reasonably foreseeable that repeal or amendment may deprive yet another man, woman or child of the right to life or to live free from fear?
That was the question to which he rightly addressed himself, and that was why he rightly concluded that there was little room for manoeuvre in amending the legislation.

I understand that there is a down side to the existence of the powers that are set out in the Act, and that there is an extent to which they are bound to be counter-productive. When an innocent person is arrested and released without charge, or when a person is stopped in the street and searched, it is possible—on this side of the water and elsewhere—for resentment to build up and a wish on the part of those concerned to distance themselves from involvement in the processes of the administration of justice and policing. That is a factor that must be taken into account. However, that must be balanced against having the present powers of the police and the security forces and a law that enables the courts to operate free from the intimidation that would, but for the Diplock courts, be a manifest part of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. There must be that balance to ensure that the lives of the people of Northern Ireland are given the protection that they deserve.
I do not accept lightly the need for the current powers to continue in existence. In many ways, it is with regret that I have again to argue that the House should renew them for a further period. However, I must tell the House that, as one who has considered the issue carefully, I am convinced that we need the powers. As I told the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West when we debated these issues previously, if he were on the Government Front Bench he would learn very quickly that he, too, would need the powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked about the intention of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to accede to the convention on the suppression of terrorism. They have reiterated on several occasions their intention to do so as soon as possible. It has become apparent that they will need primary legislation in the Oireachtas to carry their accession to the convention into existence, and they are still investigating the timescale for doing that. They have reiterated their intention to do so it soon as possible.
The message tonight is that the Government are convinced that the fight against terrorism can be won without draconian security policies and without departing from the rule of law. But it will be necessary to provide the security forces for another six months with the powers that are included in this instrument.
We shall later deal with an amendment to the legislation. My right hon. Friend has reiterated our determination to introduce new legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament following many of the recommendations of Sir George Baker, and the House will welcome an opportunity in due course to discuss those issues. We are convinced——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 62.

Division No. 40]
[11.40 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Amess, David
Blackburn, John


Arnold, Tom
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Bellingham, Henry
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)






Brinton, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jessel, Toby


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Browne, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bruinvels, Peter
Key, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Burt, Alistair
King, Rt Hon Tom


Butterfill, John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Knowles, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cash, William
Lawrence, Ivan


Chope, Christopher
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Coombs, Simon
Lester, Jim


Cope, John
Lilley, Peter


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lord, Michael


Crouch, David
Lyell, Nicholas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dover, Den
Maclean, David John


Durant, Tony
Maclennan, Robert


Evennett, David
Major, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Marlow, Antony


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mather, Carol


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Galley, Roy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon C.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Murphy, Christopher


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Newton, Tony


Hancock, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Norris, Steven


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, J.
Osborn, Sir John


Hayward, Robert
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Henderson, Barry
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hind, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Michael
Powley, John


Howarth, Alan (Straft'd-on-A)
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral, W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunter, Andrew
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)





Scott, Nicholas



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, David
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.




NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Leighton, Ronald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Barnett, Guy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bell, Stuart
McNamara, Kevin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Madden, Max


Bermingham, Gerald
Marek, Dr John


Blair, Anthony
Maxton, John


Boyes, Roland
Maynard, Miss Joan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Michie, William


Canavan, Dennis
Mikardo, Ian


Clarke, Thomas
Nellist, David


Clay, Robert
Parry, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pike, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Randall, Stuart


Crowther, Stan
Redmond, Martin


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Deakins, Eric
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Dixon, Donald
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Dormand, Jack
Skinner, Dennis


Dubs, Alfred
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fatchett, Derek
Soley, Clive


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Spearing, Nigel


Fisher, Mark
Strang, Gavin


Flannery, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Godman, Dr Norman
Welsh, Michael


Haynes, Frank
Winnick, David


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. John McWilliam and


Lamond, James
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.

Northern Ireland

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.
The order we are considering tonight gives us an opportunity to amend schedule 4 to the Act on roughly the lines proposed by Sir George Baker, as this can be achieved by order under section 30 of the Act and does not require a Bill to introduce the amendment. The amendment order will in effect widen the discretion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to certify in respect of particular cases that offences should not be treated as "scheduled" offences. This extends the range of offences which could potentially be tried before a jury and is intended to make it possible for more cases to be tried by jury in Northern Ireland. However, the Government share Sir George Baker's view that unfortunately the time has not yet arrived at which jury trial could be restored for all cases involving terrorist-type offences in Northern Ireland.
Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that this amending order marks a small step in the right direction and provides, I hope, an answer to those who question the sincerity of the Government's commitment to dismantle the apparatus of emergency legislation as soon as it is safe to do so. This is something to which we have long been committed and the order is a direct result of Sir George Baker's review, which was completed in 1984.
I am very conscious of the fact that the order may not go as far as many right hon. and hon. Members and the Government would like, but it goes as far as we can in the present circumstances. I hope, therefore, that everyone, both in this House and elsewhere, will recognise in this measure, limited though it must be, our readiness to match our actions to our understanding of the importance of building and maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
In essence, the order meets virtually the whole of Sir George's recommendations 12, 13 and 15, which were that kidnapping, false imprisonment, offences under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and all scheduled offences which are triable summarily, or carry a maximum sentence of less than five years, should be capable of being certified out. The exceptions are those offences under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and those scheduled offences which carry a low maximum penalty but are, in practice, only likely to be committed by persons associated with terrorists. In my view, it would be pointless to give the Attorney-General discretion to certify out such offences when he will almost certainly never be able to exercise that discretion.
The amending order does not extend the Attorney-General's discretion to cover robbery or aggravated burglary, as Sir George Baker had recommended, but it is worth emphasising to the House that this does not mean that all cases involving robbery or aggravated burglary will, in practice, be tried in a Diplock court, as under note 4 to schedule 4 such offences only come within the definition of scheduled offences "where it is charged that an explosive, firearm, imitation firearm or weapon of offence was used to commit the offence". In circumstances

where such weapons are used, it is usually very difficult to tell whether the alleged offence was committed for domestic or terrorist purposes. If such offences were capable of being certified out, the Attorney-General's decision in particular cases might be perceived as an indication that one accused person had terrorist links while another did not. That could prejudice the outcome of certain trials and make my right hon. and learned Friend's decisions in such matters a matter of public debate. Where the decision cannot be clear-cut, I believe that it is better not to confer discretion and to leave the mode of trial to be determined on objective criteria by reference to the nature of the offence.
For completeness, I should record that the Government do not intend to accept Sir George Baker's recommendations 16 and 17. He had recommended that the power to certify out offences in particular cases be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General believes that it would be right to reserve this important power to himself. He can then continue to he directly answerable to the House on the way in which he exercises that power.
Sir George Baker also recommended—and this is a particular point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) in the last debate—that if a case had been certified out and was being heard by jury, and seemed likely to result in a wrongful verdict as a result of intimidation, harassment or whatever, the trial judge should have the power to discharge the jury and continue the trial alone or to direct that it be heard by another judge sitting alone. The Government disagree with this recommendation because any such decision would risk bringing the courts into disrepute. Critics would argue that judges exercised such powers only where they disagreed with the likely outcome of a jury trial, and that it was a device for setting the judge's views on matters of fact above those of a jury. We believe that, where a jury is believed to have been intimidated, the correct course would be to abandon the trial and to order a retrial. It would then be for the Attorney-General to use his discretion to judge whether the offence should be certified out or not.
I believe that this amending order represents a modest step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House will be grateful to the Minister for that explanation.
As to the matter which he has just mentioned, the proposal of Sir George Baker for conditional jury trial, this is obviously not the occasion on which we should enter into a debate on it, but I hope that we can properly infer from what the Minister has said that the Government at least intend to introduce the amendment in the form in which he has just described it, so that we will then have an opportunity to discuss it.
The measure which the Government propose today is a very modest one, but it is a move in the right direction and, as far as it goes, we welcome it. I have already indicated the reason why we believe that it misses the essential point. For the record, I will try to say it again in one paragraph.
The whole justification which is suggested for non-jury trial is that it is designed to deal with offences connected with terrorism. We know that at present some 40 per cent.


of those convicted under that procedure have no connection with terrorism. The schedule, as it is drawn, catches allegations of offences committed from motives which are in no way political. This order extends the discretion of the Attorney-General to certify out of the provisions some offences additional to those already in the schedule. We know that the large percentage of charges which are not connected with terrorism relate to robbery involving the use of real or immitation firearms. The order does not give the Attorney-General power to certify out the offences under the provisions that I listed in the previous debate. I do not find it easy to understand the Minister's reason for that. It seems to be that discretion is not to be given to Law Officers because their decision might be misunderstood. We may have an opportunity to discuss that at greater length on another occasion.
This is one further example of the frustration that arises from legislating for Northern Ireland by unamendable orders. This is essentially an order on which we would have liked to table amendments to include those provisions. Then we could have discussed them, and we would all have known where we were. We can only make that point and hope that in due course the Government will hear and respond to it.
We accept the order, modest as it is, as what we hope will be the beginning of more effective reforms.

12 midnight

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I shall not speak at length, because the general views of Social Democrat and Liberal Members on the order were adumbrated during the previous debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). However, the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that it is possible to conduct criminal trials in Northern Ireland by jury seems completely unsustainable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are discussing changes proposed to schedule 4 to the 1978 legislation. He must not speak to the last debate which was concluded.

Mr. Maclennan: The changes are being made to the 1978 Act, but they relate directly to jury trials and non-jury trials. It seemed that I could comment in passing on the general principle which the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported in his speech on this order. I do not seek to do more than that. I seek briefly and cogently to point out that the reason why we must stick to the Diplock trials and cannot move towards descheduling on a larger scale is that there is no guarantee of justice being done and jurors not being intimidated in the present position.
How do the Government view the difficulty of descheduling? It is not entirely clear from the nature of an offence whether it is associated with terrorism, for example a bank may be broken into to enrich the robber or to finance the IRA. It must be extremely difficult on the face of it to determine whether it is a terrorist offence which it would be appropriate to schedule, or whether it is not and appropriate for the Attorney-General to deschedule. It must be necessary for the Attorney-General to err on the side of assuming that offences capable of being terrorist offences are such.

Our anxieties about the continuance of the Diplock courts is to some extent alleviated by information which the Solicitor-General gave in tonight's debate and in the summer, in which he pointed out that the rates of conviction in Northern Ireland were not substantially greater for scheduled offences than for unscheduled offences where trials are conducted by juries.
Another point which has been overlooked is that, in trials of scheduled offences, certain additional rights are enjoyed by the accused, including the requirement that the judge give his reasons for his findings of fact as well as his sentence. Secondly, there is an automatic right of appeal against the judge's findings to the Court of Appeal which does not follow in the case of unscheduled offences.
These balancing factors, in my view, are reasons why it is right to move with caution towards descheduling. I hope that that view is shared by the Government. I think that the alliance would accept the reasons which were advanced by the Minister in opening the debate for not proceeding further or faster, and for rejecting those recommendations of Sir George Baker which he indicated the Government did not accept.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: I have a few observations only which I make because I understand that there is unlikly to be a Division at the end of the debate.
I am opposed to the so-called temporary seven-year old Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Even with the amendments proposed, it will not comply with the European convention on human rights. Furthermore, it will still not compare with the level of justice which exists in this part of Britain. I am advised that the Government are proposing these amendments based on the fact that they were the sort of amendments recommended by the Baker review.
However, Baker also put forward some other important recommendations for the Government to put into effect to make the Act a little more just. Among those was that the power of internment should be totally removed from the statute book. It was also recommended that all arrests should be on the basis of reasonable suspicion and not just suspicion; the army's powers of arrest should be confined to terrorist-type offences, the initial onus for opposing bail should be on the prosecution, and bail should be automatic for anyone held on remand for more than 12 months without committal for trial. Furthermore, confessions obtained by violence or the threat of violence should be inadmissible in court. Baker recommended that a limit should be placed on the number of defendants in any one trial. I maintain that the amendments so suggested will not make the emergency powers legislation any more just than it is at present.

Mr. Stuart Bell: This is the expurgated version of the speech that I might have made but for the lateness of the hour and courtesy to the House.
I welcome to our debate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts). I listened with interest to his brief remarks.
We waited with some eagerness to hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I had hoped to hear a definitive description of the alliance position which would have been of some assistance to the people of Northern Ireland. I regret that the message from


the hon. Gentleman is that the people of Northern Ireland have nothing to hope from the SDP/Liberal alliance other than half-baked, half-thought out, ill-advised and ill-conceived ideas. I am sure that that message will be clear.
The order extends the list of so-called scheduled offences in schedule 4 of the 1978 Act. They are not to be treated as scheduled offences unless the Attorney-General so certifies. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said in his short but cogent speech, the order does not go far enough, but earlier the Secretary of State said that he would take into account the wider and more positive recommendations in the Baker report and that legislation would be introduced in this Parliament.
The Opposition do not intend to divide the House on this order.

Mr. Scott: With the leave of the House, may I say that we have covered briefly some interesting matters.
I must tell the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) that the order has to be seen against the background of the Government's declared intention further to implement the Baker recommendations by introducing legislation in this Parliament, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) recognised. We were conscious that this limited progress could be made through an amending order without primary legislation. We thought it right to demonstrate the Government's commitment and to respond to pressures by taking this modest step. The Government are determined to legislate further during this Parliament.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act is fully consistent with the European convention on human rights and the United Nations international covenant on civil and political rights. It is a distortion to imply that it is not.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned the distinction between different types of robbery. We have come to the conclusion that there is a difficulty in deciding, when firearms are used to rob a bank or post office, what the motive is—whether it is for paramilitary purposes or for private gain. To give the Attorney-General the power to decide whether it was a terrorist or domestic offence before the case comes to trial would prejudice the trial and we decided not to go down that road. But I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) agrees that this order is a modest step in the right direction. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CROWN AGENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Crown Agents (Amendment) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crown Agents (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any remission of interest on the commencing capital debt of the Crown Agents for the period 1987–1991; and in this resolution "commencing capital debt" has the same meaning as in the Crown Agents Act 1979.
The money resolution is straightforward. It reflects the narrow and specific purpose of the Crown Agents (Amendment) Bill on which we had a full debate in Second Reading Committee last month. There is nothing of substance that I can add, arid I commend the resolution to the House.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I do not want unduly to detain the House at this hour, but issues were raised in Committee concerning the special estates of the staff of the Crown Agents pensions division at East Kilbride. The Minister assured us that he would seek to settle the matter by the end of December. Has he done that? If he has not, why not, and when can we expect a decision? We are prepared to anticipate that we shall get a better decision by waiting, but the Minister will appreciate the great anxiety of staff about their future and we should like to know when there might be a decision.

Mr. Raison: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply. I am afraid that I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter is still under consideration. We have not yet been able to make a decision and I cannot say what the likely outcome will be. I realise the need to get on with it. I also realise that there is interest in it in East Kilbride.
I am anxious that we should make a decision as soon as possible. It has proved quite a complex matter—there are several interests that have to be taken into account, including the interests of my Department that pensions work is most effectively done, the interests of the Crown Agents and the interests of those concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keen to get the matter settled as soon as possible, and I shall do all that I can to that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Urban Deprivation (Liverpool)

Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Robert Parry: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the subject of urban deprivation and housing problems in the inner-city areas of Liverpool.
In the debate initiated by the Opposition on a Supply Day on 11 December, I sat in the Chamber for more than five hours without being called. The debate covered the increasing poverty and deprivation in our inner-city areas and the Government's failure to deal with the serious pproblem of widespread disrepair in urban areas, the need to regenerate Britain's cities and the need to reverse the deliberate reduction of rate support grant and investment in housing which is leading to a major housing crisis and more homelessness among the more unfortunate members of our society.
I do not apologise for detaining the House so late, as I want to put on record my views and the problems facing my constituency and inner-city areas in Liverpool. According to figures supplied by the House of Commons Library, the estimated level of male unemployment in my constituency is 41 per cent. That is the highest in Great Britain, not just on the mainland. Of that number, 40 per cent. are under 25 and 61 per cent. have been unemployed for more than one year. Of the under-25s, 47 per cent. have been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. In areas such as Vauxhall, Everton and Toxteth, the true figure is well over 50 per cent.; more than one in every two people is on the dole and the scrap heap cannot be tolerated in any caring or civilised society or by any Government, including this most heartless and cruel one. The tragedy of long-term unemployment, especially among youth and white people is bad enough, but it is far more serious among black youth in Toxteth and other inner-city areas such as Handsworth, Brixton, Tottenham and Moss Side, which have witnessed horrific riots, violence and civil disturbances.
The Merseyside Manpower Services Commission has recently published a survey on ethnic minorities which shows that a disproportionate degree of unemployment is experienced by the black population of Liverpool and that, on average, black people need to be submitted for 25 vacancies before finding a job as compared to 15 for white people. I suggest that the figures are on the conservative side and can be multiplied throughout our urban areas. Mass long-term unemployment is, I believe, the major root cause of discontent in our inner-city areas.
I shall now consider the critical housing situation. I firmly believe that the right to life is the first basic human right but that the right to work and live in dignity with a roof over one's head follows closely behind. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), when he was the Minister for Housing and Construction, visited my constituency, at my request, and both publicly stated after the event that they saw some of the worst housing they had ever seen. In spite of seeing pre-war slum tenements and appalling tower blocks, like the infamous "Piggeries" and the "Ugly Sisters", their response was to cut further Liverpool's allocation for the housing investment

programme. The cuts have averaged 15 per cent. each year since 1979. Last year, Liverpool bid for £132 million to deal with its critical housing problems but was given only a miserly £31 million.
Then there were the central Government's cuts and the dereliction of responsibility by the Liberal-Tory coalition on the city council: few houses were built for rent for nearly a decade, the maintenance and repair departments were deliberately run down with job losses and the repair backlog reached epidemic proportions—the elected Labour city council, on a mandate given to it by the Liverpool people in two successive elections, kept its promise. It embarked on a crash programme of demolition of the old pre-war slum tenements and rat-infested tower blocks, maintenance of jobs within the council and provision of services. For that initiative, the democratically elected councillors will later this month face a court threat. This action may banish them from public office and make them bankrupt and even face imprisonment.
I have always supported the city council. I salute its brave councillors, its men of honour. Most of the 17 priority areas which are designated to be built in Liverpool are in my constituency. This is the most imaginative house-building programme in Britain. Where there were old slums, there are new building programmes. People are moving out of the slums to semi-detached houses and bungalows. There is sheltered accommodation for the aged and disabled. People, sometimes for the first time in their lives, are in a house with a garden in the back and front. I know people who are grandparents and great-grandparents who moved out of Victorian dwellings into the pre-war tenements and have never had a house. For the first time, they have a house in the community with a garden at the back and front. They are very happy about this.
According to the official figures, Liverpool, Riverside has 19·5 per cent. owner-occupiers compared with 55·7 per cent. for Great Britain. Rented council accommodation in the area is 53 per cent. compared with 31 per cent. nationally. On overcrowding, 8·5 per cent. of households in Riverside have more than one person per room, which is nearly twice the national average of 4·3 per cent. This is the highest in the north west. The last census shows that 6·2 per cent. of households in Riverside lacked or shared the use of a bath, which is nearly twice the British average of 3·2 per cent.
I must declare an interest in that I am a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union and a member of its construction branch. Liverpool, despite its house-building programme, still has a waiting list of more than 20,000 people. It has the highest unemployment level in the construction industry in the United Kingdom.
It is crazy that, in areas of mass unemployment in the building industry and where there is a dearth of good housing, we witness the Government robbing the city of badly needed resources and finance. The "Group of Eight" in the construction industry, of whom the national secretary of my trade union, Mr. George Henderson, is one, has lobbied the Prime Minister, without success. Recently, the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities housing committee stated that it would need an injection of £19 billion just to keep the present housing stock in both the private and the public sector in a decent state of repair. In Liverpool alone, for every £1 spent on housing in 1979, when the Conservatives first came to


power, only 26p was spent in 1985. Since 1979, more than 450,000 jobs in the building industry have gone. None of those statements has been refuted by the Government.
Last January, I tabled an early-day motion on unemployment in the building industry, which was supported by 123 right hon. and hon. Members. The Motion called for a massive increase in public investment to build badly needed new homes, to construct new roads and improve existing roads, and to overhaul our decaying sewerage and water system. It also called for a programme of public works to be carried out as suggested by the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, the building trade trade unions, the National Home Improvement Council and others to get the 450,000 building workers back to work and to help the companies which supply materials, thus creating more jobs and putting more life into decaying inner city areas. Those areas are stinking ghettoes suffering much deprivation. Thousands of our citizens are homeless or are living in dirty, squalid conditions. The unemployed are living in misery and despair, without any hope for the future.
I wish to quote from a letter which I received from the National Home Improvement Council:
The NHIC is deeply concerned regarding the depressed housing of Liverpool and believe that this is reflected in many other inner cities. It is time the Government made positive steps to encourage new initiatives before the crisis becomes a national disaster.
I agree totally with that.
To complete the picture, now that public transport is under attack by the Government and the metropolitan councils are being abolished services will be further affected in inner city areas. Official Government figures in the 1981 census showed that in Riverside, my constituency, 79·3 per cent. of all households had no car. That was a higher percentage than in any other constituency in England and Wales and the third highest in Great Britain. The United Kingdom average was 39·5 per cent.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will not put on the old record which we have heard so many times in the past when we have raised the question of deprivation. The Government keep repeating talk about investment in Merseyside in the international garden festival, the Merseyside development corporation, the enterprise zone or the freeport. The garden festival was a success for nine short months. The 500 jobs that were created by it have gone unfortunately and those people are back on the dole. Very few new jobs have been created by the freeport or by the Merseyside development corporation which is looking after the Albert docks.
Recently the Government were warned about what is happening by the Church of England in its report "Faith in the City". The Church of England, which was once called the Conservative party at prayer, and the leaders of the Catholic Church, the Methodists and the Free Church have expressed deep concern, as have the League of Friends, the Quakers. They cannot all be wrong.
In a Quaker survey a newcomer to Liverpool, who was a former social worker, said:
They're really friendly, really warm. They go out of their way to help. It's as if there's a war on and we're all in it.
An NSPCC official said:
One of the most awful things about unemployment is the loss of the individual's self-esteem and value in society. Our

materialistic society rates success in terms of the kind of job and size of salary that a person has, rather than on who people are and what they do for each other—their personality and caring.
We need to change how we value people. We need to recognise that we have bred a generation of young people who may never work—may never have the opportunity to attain success as we now measure it.
Even this uncaring, heartless Government cannot ignore a city's cry for help. I represent Toxteth and before redistribution I represented the Granby area in which there is most civil disturbance. I warned the Government before the 1981 riots that things would blow up, but I was ignored.
Unfortunately, in 1981 there were the worst civil disturbances on the British mainland in our history, in 1985 there were even more serious incidents in Birmingham and London. I warn the Government that if they ignore the problem they will be responsible for any further civil disturbances, not only in Liverpool but in other inner-city areas.
We are sitting on a volcano ready to erupt. The time bomb is ticking away. The answer lies with the Government, and I sincerely hope that they heed the warning.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) made a moving speech about the real problems that face his constituency in Liverpool. He is honest enough to acknowledge that the problems have not simply emerged over the past six years. They derive from the long-term economic decline of Liverpool, which has brought with it high unemployment and associated problems of physical dereliction, poor housing stock and a high proportion of disadvantaged groups.
The problems in Liverpool have built up over the past 25 years. It has been subjected to massive economic changes over that period, and it has lost about 30 per cent. of its population. Many of those who have left have been young people with skills. Changes in the national economy since the war have also led to the rundown of the port of Liverpool and the port-related activities. That, in its wake, has brought substantial losses in manufacturing capacity.
The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to suggest that there had been a massive reduction in Government spending on Merseyside. Since 1979–80, Government expenditure in that area has risen from £718 million to £1,041 million—an increase of 45 per cent The Government are spending a great deal of money on the city of Liverpool. A massive £28 million was allocated through the urban aid programme alone last year. The initiatives have included the creation of a new maritime museum, a revamp for Lime street station, improvements to the city centre sites and buildings and access routes related to the international garden festival.
We are doing what we can with derelict land in Merseyside. We spent £6 million on derelict land grant, and there was a major land reclamation exercise costing £6·5 million to create the Wavertree technology park. Some £12 million has been spent on housing and historic buildings. The Anglican cathedral precinct is the most significant initiative under that heading, but we are also upgrading housing in Princes boulevard, preserving the


18th and 19th century houses in Canning street and helping the Weller street and Brownlow hill co-operatives provide homes.
The hon. Gentleman spent some time discussing housing and homelessness. There are a large number of vacant dwellings in Liverpool—2,178 in 1984, which is 3·35 per cent. of the housing stock. It is essential to bring back into use existing dwellings that are unoccupied, before we indulge in a major new house building for rent programme.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister referring to houses awaiting demolition? A number of pre-war tenements are boarded up and cannot be used for housing.

Sir George Young: Those are the figures given to us by Liverpool city council, and they are vacant dwellings in its area. Any district council will have some houses that are empty because tenants are changing or the properties are awaiting refurbishment, but the percentage in Liverpool is 3·35. That is relatively high. In Birmingham it is 2·15 per cent. and in Gateshead it is 2·59 per cent. The first point that I want to make on housing is that, before the city council engages in a fairly expensive programme of new buildings for rent, it should realise that it is cheaper and quicker to bring back into use some of the dwellings that are unoccupied.
The hon. Gentleman spent much time on housing, I would not dispute the proposition that Liverpool's housing problems are among the worst in the country. The reasons for housing decay and the appalling problems of some of the post-war housing are well known. It is common ground between us that much money will have to be spent to give the people of Liverpool the opportunity to live in decent houses. The Government's view is that we must get the best value out of every pound of public money spent.
The Government believe that the response should not be rooted in the replacement of unpopular municipal stock. The aim should be to find the most cost-effective approach which provides housing choice and uses all available resources, including the private sector and the resourcefulness of local communities. The city council's reliance on a physical solution underplays the social problems on estates and ignores the desirability of giving people responsibility for their own homes. The municipal solution to which the council is committed is very expensive and rides roughshod over people's aspirations to own a home of their choice or to be involved in the management of their own housing.
There are many examples of improved council estates in other Merseyside authorities which have not relied on municipal action. Through the Merseyside task force, initiatives have been set in hand covering more than 10,000 dwellings. Housing choice has been widened through the privatisation of estates in Wirral and Sefton.
Through a package of urban programme and MSC funds, improvements to rundown estates are being secured by tenants themselves on community refurbishment schemes. Twelve such schemes are now under way, covering 6,500 dwellings.
The private sector is taking part in an initiative to develop sites which would not normally have attracted private funds, as a result of which over 800 new homes are being provided. However the sad fact is that none of those initiatives are taking place in Liverpool. They are taking

place elsewhere in Merseyside. The opportunities for making more rapid progress in tackling the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman have been sacrificed by the city council on the altar of dogma.
The need to develop a varied and innovative approach to the problems was emphasised when my Department's urban housing renewal unit visited Liverpool in October. The unit explored the scope for involving the private sector in renewing the city's rundown estates. Both the task force and the unit have encouraged the city to decentralise its key management functions to a local level to improve services for the tenants. I hope that Liverpool will respond positively to these initiatives. They are not inspired out of political dogma, but have at their heart a commitment to improve the difficult conditions in which many tenants find themselves living in Liverpool.
The hon. Gentleman was critical of the Government's response to the issue that he has raised. I think that there is a feeling between us that much needs to be done to regenerate Liverpool. Government expenditure on Merseyside is running at about £1 billion a year, but we can see from the problems associated with post-war housing that committing resources is not by itself enough. Measures have to be taken to rebuild confidence as well as bringing about physical improvements. The Government are tackling the deep-seated economic and industrial problems of Liverpool on many fronts. The Department of Trade and Industry's grants and expenditure towards industrial investment in the area exceed £50 million in 1985–86. Since May 1979 Liverpool has received over £155 million in regional aid.
A concerted effort has been made, through MSC programmes, to improve the skill levels of the community, with some £78 million being spent in that area in 1985–86. Overall there has been an increase in adult training opportunities in Merseyside from 3,500 in 1984-85 to about 11,000 in 1985–86. Urban programme resources have been used in conjunction with MSC programmes to set up training projects. The designation of the Merseyside development area, the Speke enterprise zone and the freeport in Bootle have also improved the climate for investment in Merseyside. That joint approach is vital if real progress is to be made.
The hon. Gentleman was somewhat dismissive of the Merseyside Development Corporation, which we established in 1981. It has a remit to regenerate some 900 acres of massively derelict and disused docklands at the heart of the Merseyside conurbation. We have made good progress, and substantial reclamation and infrastructure programmes are under way. They already include notable successes such as the international garden festival and the restoration of the Albert dock, which will include the Tate of the North from 1988. In the current year, the MDC has resources of some £30 million.
The hon. Gentleman was again somewhat dismissive of the garden festival. It was the first ever garden festival to be held in this country. It attracted over 3·3 million visitors in the six months that it was open during 1984. It represented a major boost to the reclamation programme in the area and a stimulus to the Merseyside economy. The corporation has moved on to restoring the Albert dock warehouses—an outstanding group of grade 1 listed buildings in the Liverpool south docks. A joint restoration project with the Arrowcroft Group is now under way to provide commercial and residential accommodation. Two major blocks of development opened in August 1984,


including the highly successful Maritime museum. A further block opened in July 1985, and a further development, to open in 1988, will include the Tate of the North gallery.
Other substantial projects include the restoration of the water system to the south docks, and the British American Tobacco project to convert disused dock sheds into small industrial units.
The MDC has adopted a tourism and leisure strategy for the Liverpool waterfront which builds on the success of the international garden festival, Albert dock and Martime museum. For the dock system between Albert dock and Toxteth dock a "shopping list" of key projects has been identified from which a successful mix of schemes will be drawn. These will include national tourist attractions as well as local and regional sports and leisure facilities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for central Government to play their part in stimulating investment. The Merseyside task force has been active in promoting development projects and bringing together different agencies. Particular emphasis has been placed on interdepartmental co-operation and esablishing good links with the private sector, including the secondment of staff on specific initiatives. The main job of the task force is to work with local authorities, Government agencies such as English Estates, and with the private sector to carry forward initiatives and projects which help regenerate the area. There are considerable achievements to the credit of the task force.
A number of vacant sites have been brought back into use through the efforts of the task force—the most important being the Anglican cathedral precinct site. Others are the former Exchange station, which has been redeveloped for offices, the Wavertree technology park, where 64 acres of derelict land are being transformed into a centre for high technology industry. Public parks at Everton and Speke are being created out of derelict and neglected land. The Government have also co-operated with the private sector in land reclamation—examples of such schemes are Minster court, Kingsway loop and Mathew street.
The Government have been doing what they can, and it is legitimate to question the approach of the city council. The municipal approach of Liverpool city council has not been helpful in the regeneration process. It has largely ignored the potential of the private and voluntary sectors and has been patently wasteful of resources. It has helped to camouflage financial inefficiency. The council's housing strategy is almost entirely oriented towards

municipalisation. It has embarked on an extensive new building programme, but has consistently refused to support self-help initiatives such as co-operatives, shared ownership schemes and building for sale.

Mr. Parry: rose——

Sir George Young: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must finish my speech, so I shall not give way.
The city council has been at best indifferent and at worst hostile to the private sector and has withdrawn much of the support and encouragement given by the previous council. It has disbanded the Liverpool development agency, whose job it was to assist existing businesses and encourage new investment.
The council has failed to make use of Government money, provided through the urban programme, to assist firms. It has abandoned the industrial improvement areas set up by the previous Administration. It has made next to no use of urban development grants from my Department, which are specifically designed to enable investments to go ahead which would not otherwise be viable.
It has refused to co-operate with major Government-led initiatives to improve Liverpool's image and generate new activity, including the international garden festival and the Speke enterprise zone.

Mr. Parry: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: No. With respect, the hon. Gentleman took 15 minutes to present his case and I have only half a minute left of my 15 minutes.
The council has tried to undermine and take over the traditionally strong voluntary section in Liverpool by refusing to support new voluntary sector proposals, and it has attempted to municipalise existing activities.
That is a formidable catalogue of missed opportunities by the city council. I know from my own experience as chairman of the London partnership committees, which are run by Left-wing Labour councils, that it is possible to work with the Government to tackle problems of urban regeneration. There is still the possibility of a consensus on the need to encourage business, create jobs and promote self-help. All too often, Liverpool has slammed the door on this type of co-operation. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Riverside will use what influence he has with the city council to persuade it to change its posture for the better in the coming year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to One o' clock.